>The popularity of the language and the applications built in it are irrelevant to the quality of the language itself.
This borders on the mystical. There is no intrinsic quality that a language has if that quality can not be measured in some way.
A "better quality" language that does not account for it in more useful programs being written in it, is like a "good man" that never did any good deeds. Even if in some mystical, esoteric way, it was true, it would be of no consequence. Only what has actual consequence in the outside world matters in engineering (and programming).
(I didn't wrote "in more better programs being written in it" because that would be a vicious circle).
Programming languages are standalone products, that can evaluated regardless of their environment. For example, anyone reasonable can see that is brainfuck is a deeply flawed language regardless of the applications written it. If you cannot evaluate a language on its own merits, there is really no point in talking to you about this.
>Programming languages are standalone products, that can evaluated regardless of their environment.
Only in some abstract way, that is of no consequence to the practice of programming.
Because in the real world the environment very much matters, and the best proof that "it works and gives results" it to see it, er, working and giving results.
>For example, anyone reasonable can see that is brainfuck is a deeply flawed language regardless of the applications written it.
Only the C/Lisp issue is not that trivial. Brainfuck was designed to be "deeply flawed", whereas C/Lisp were designed to have different, specific, constraints and strengths.
Or, reversely, it is because there are NO applications written in in brainfuck that we can safely deduce that it has some problems (empirical observation). If hundreds of killer apps were written in it we would have to reexamine our assumptions about it (but of course, it would have to be a different language for that). So cause and effect are lined in a feedback circle in these evaluations.
>If you cannot evaluate a language on its own merits, there is really no point in talking to you about this.
Languages are not works of art. They are tools. Tools are not to be evaluated "on their own merits", they are to be evaluated by their results.
This borders on the mystical. There is no intrinsic quality that a language has if that quality can not be measured in some way.
A "better quality" language that does not account for it in more useful programs being written in it, is like a "good man" that never did any good deeds. Even if in some mystical, esoteric way, it was true, it would be of no consequence. Only what has actual consequence in the outside world matters in engineering (and programming).
(I didn't wrote "in more better programs being written in it" because that would be a vicious circle).