I believe splork is right, at least if I understand his point. The language popularity article has almost no special relevance to free software.

It is disappointing to see such a lack of a scientific approach in some of the posters. Equating language popularity with utility, spreading lies and misrepresenting benchmark results. In addition to this, far too many statements -- not at all obvious nor clear -- go completely without support or elaboration.

Somehow we are supposed to congratulate C++ for its source level compatibility with C. From what I have read, no one forced Bjarne to create language compatible with C, that was his decision. He has said that he likes C. C has not remained unchanged since its conception, if C was lacking in areas why not propose changes to C itself?

Free software has been compared to the scientific method. I think there is now an opportunity to look beyond monikers and build languages and programs combining the most effective features and methods in existence regardless of their source.