Here's the core problem with next generation languages. Languages that come out of academia focus too much on syntax and computer science level functionality
Is that really a problem, or do they simply have a different goal to the languages you want to use?
Plenty of language concepts that enter industrial programming were born in academia and went through the mill in so-called academic languages long before they found their way into mainstream tools. Just look at all the ideas from the functional programming world that have become almost universal in recent years.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the academic languages where these ideas matured are themselves good tools for industrial applications. To be successful in industry, a language needs a lot more going for it: a good set of developer tools and a critical mass of users, for a start. This often creates a chicken-and-egg situation that can sink a new language regardless of its potential or technical merit, particularly if the approach to programming is very different to what most practitioners are used to at the time.
Anyway, I think you’re being rather unfair with the “ivory tower” characterisation. If you look up Simon Peyton-Jones’s comments on “programming language nirvana”, for example, it’s pretty obvious that he understands these issues and the roles of different kinds of language just fine.
Is that really a problem, or do they simply have a different goal to the languages you want to use?
Plenty of language concepts that enter industrial programming were born in academia and went through the mill in so-called academic languages long before they found their way into mainstream tools. Just look at all the ideas from the functional programming world that have become almost universal in recent years.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the academic languages where these ideas matured are themselves good tools for industrial applications. To be successful in industry, a language needs a lot more going for it: a good set of developer tools and a critical mass of users, for a start. This often creates a chicken-and-egg situation that can sink a new language regardless of its potential or technical merit, particularly if the approach to programming is very different to what most practitioners are used to at the time.
Anyway, I think you’re being rather unfair with the “ivory tower” characterisation. If you look up Simon Peyton-Jones’s comments on “programming language nirvana”, for example, it’s pretty obvious that he understands these issues and the roles of different kinds of language just fine.