484 karma · joined February 17, 2015
I think you’ve proposed a real reason a language’s popularity changes. But let’s add a few more: First, as languages grow in use that in itself leads to more use (and vice versa). Second, users of languages use said languages as protection of their jobs, livelihoods, culture, and so on by simply not learning less popular languages or allowing the use of less commonly used languages. There is power in numbers.
IMO R’s problem has nothing to do with R’s limitations (which when limited are easily expanded). To the contrary, if anything, R’s ability to enable users to do so much is more of a problem than its limitations. The norms (culture) of a company say using many different languages for different organizational roles can clash with an R user who can succinctly work cross-functionally. Employees could be interested in preserving siloed roles and employers could prefer limited scope for employees. Instead of one person building something and presenting to users, you could have many employees serving in many roles using standard languages for each role. R is basically a wrapper language, and the ease at which third-party libraries can be built and installed for R, and R’s flexibility is inherently “useful” but less dogmatic. Less dogmatic but also less standard and less common.
… So I just don’t think the problem for R is that “it’s not deemed useful” and I actually think such an argument is disingenuous on the part of people who want to limit the power of R users. Granted, I think, particularly in large organizations, using the most popular languages in itself has valid justification. But the reason is to attract employees and to build siloed expertise; not to enhance “usefulness”.
It was only a week but it was so refreshing. I think about this experience daily when driving because I think of how much time would be saved if people just knew absolutely when to take their turn and took it; instead of processing each decision and deciding based on their current mood. People knew the damn rules and norms.
So, I think it’s a function of having a critical mass, being necessary, and being embedded already as a norm. I don’t believe a city could make riding without a helmet legal and expect any sort of increase in safety …
P.S. I agree with you
Example: year one 50k income 22% marginal tax. Year two 180k income 32% marginal tax. You have 100k more ordinary income. You will pay less tax if it occurs in year one.
Yes for this to matter you need to have some control over the order of payments. This is most commonly a 401k. Otherwise, it’s likely to be relevant through some form of business ownership. Perhaps you have a big contract coming in, or you are self employed, or you are receiving a bonus, or perhaps you own some shares where you could elect to sell when they only qualify as ordinary income as discussed by the original article.