So, a language is successful if hackers use it?

Hacking is an activity with different requirements from other programming activity, so one would expect the language preferences to differ. Hacking, I expect (not something I've ever been interested in doing) involves quite a bit of file manipulation and command execution, so more "typical" programming languages wouldn't be terribly useful. Perhaps in the past Perl rated higher?

So, a language is successful if hackers use it?

Sort of like how imaging technologies become successful when porn uses them (8mm, VHS, streaming video, etc.)

It reminds me of the 1980s and Prestel for a start.

It also feels a little too close to "influencer"

For an old fart like me, a hacker is simply someone who gets things done, by any means possible, especially if it's regarded as difficult or forbidden.

Many proof of concept scripts seem to be written in Python (perhaps because it is quick and dirty?). However I imagine many hackers (and crackers) are extremely proficient in C, C++. Mainly because they must be in order to identify buffer overflows and things like that.

Many probably are familiar with assembly (incl a number of different architectures) too, at least via disassemblers, tools like Radare2.

The reason why Perl and Python are used is because if you get a foothold in a system enough to drop a text file off and submit it to any sophisticated interpreted language, Perl and Python (amongst other capable languages) allow more access to network and OS facilities than a normal shell.

It is quite possible (and I have done it) to write things like packet and message forwarders in a language like Perl, opening a port on the outside interface of a system, and shuffling packets to the internal networks. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

This is not possible using something like ksh88 (although it may be possible in ksh93, with it's dynamic library linking).

The thing about interpreted languages is that you don't need to know the underlying architecture of a system, or rely on a compilation system on your first foothold, in order to perform sophisticated attacks. The high-function interpreted language give you all the facilities you need.

Where hackers use C++ and other compiled languages is for external attack tools like port scanners and brute force tools. But, in order to use such languages to run things once you are in a system, you have to either know in advance the internal architecture of a system so you can compile commands in advance, or use a resident compilation tool on that system, something that should never be allowed on a system on a boundary.

I'm sure there have been multi-layer attacks that have gained a foothold, inserted precompiled tools such as a minimal compiler, then sent programs through to compile in situ, but it's easier just to use something like Perl if it's on a system.

If it were possible, I would completely ban high function interpreted language runtimes on boundary systems in an environment, but nowadays, so many admin tools rely on these runtimes that it's just not possible.

I disagree with the survey in a number of respects.

The UNIX Shell and Bash are programming languages, albeit rather specialized ones that rely on, and manipulate other external tools. But it is possible, and I have, written programs just using the shell itself, without calling other tools (you do this when trying to work out what is wrong with a system unable to launch other programs). It's rather a hair-shirt experience, but it is possible.

But I doubt that a shell us used for much more than marshaling other tools when people are hacking systems. It may be the first level of automation available to a hacker, but it's extremely unlikely that a shell script itself will be the active tool performing any hack (at least not unless there are stupid mistakes made by the administrators).

But I would wonder who in their right mind would define Vim as an Integrated Development Environment (IDE)? It's a sophisticated editor, but as far as I know, it's not even as integrated as electric-c-mode and the multi-buffer compilation system using make in Emacs. At least in Emacs, you have assists that allow you to capture the errors from a compilation, and then parse them to take you to the relevant line in the source, and even use the Grand Unified Debugger mode for using something like dbx.

A quick scan did not find anything like this available for Vim.

Those who think bash is not a programing language may not have read the article on wordle in bash https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/02/bash_wordle/

I have used Vim since it was vi.

It is very definitely not an IDE.

I was surprised that it was even mentioned as such.

Netbeans, Idea & Android Studio, Eclipse, Visual Studio, XCode. I use them all in varying degrees but just use Vim and TextWrangler as shell editors.

Have a beer for commenting before I got to it!

You don't use it as an IDE, but it can be turned into an IDE piecemeal via plugins if desired. For example, I recently discovered that there are plugins for VIM that support Visual Studio's language server protocol, giving you features like instant syntax checking, documentation, and completion. Not easy to set up, and not necessarily always worth it, but I've found the Haskell one quite useful.

If you go back to DOS, where IDEs seem to have gained a foothold (due to the platform lacking any multi-tasking so it did need to be "all-in-one") and compare Vim with Borland Turbo C and it's cult classic IDE; I don't see too much in it in all fairness.

Then compare this with Watcom Vi (of the day) and there is a clear difference.

In many ways that is why I prefer (n)vi and tmux for my work because Vim does feel a bit too heavy.

As someone who learnt to program 50 years ago next month, colour me unimpressed.

[Icon is nearest to crumbling old wreck.]

I only have 43 years so have an upvote.

Can we Noobs play too?

COBOL, 32 years ago. I still have my copy of "Structured Cobol" published by McGraw Hill, 1986 edition.

Only 47 here (Fortran 66, coding sheets, punched cards).

Have a beer - but only the one, or you'll be up all night.

Have a beer - but only the one, or you'll be up all night.

Pro tip: if your doctor puts you on a diuretic, ensure you take it in the morning rather than mistakenly taking it just before going to bed. The latter will ensure you understand that "up all night" has a very different meaning from when you were a young man.

Newbies! I learned to program on an IBM1620 with FORTRAN 2 in 1969, so something like 53 years ago. :)

Upvote because I'm 48 and started when I was 12, so "relatively young" but... Good grief, five years? That's "still in nappies" isn't it?

Are they sure? A real Hacker would have entered many times, and had some fun with the responses given too.

But using Javascript / HTML / CSS apparently makers you a "hacker" these days, or at least it does in the eyes of 30% of those who consider themselves to be one. As another old fart who's been coding for about 40 years, I'm detecting a few wannabes amongst these responses, unless of course the results have actually been hacked. But I doubt this - I would be expecting to hear that 75% are using INTERCAL or Brainfuck if they had the true hacker mojo.

Shell first, then Python, then C, then HTML , then C++?

It's quite clear from that that hacking has some rather specific requirements that are, shall we say, less likely to be encountered in the workplace.

Plus, anybody who has ever met a hacker (as in the type that walks through security like it isn't there, rather than the tinkerer type) knows that they don't refer to themselves as hackers. They don't refer to themselves at all. Experienced hackers don't need to prove anything, and certainly not share it with others.

How did I meet such a person? Noticing the use of an acoustic modem with a laptop and a public phone (note - about twenty odd years ago). Talking to her (yes, a her), she was also well aware of all the security cameras in shops and knew this one place was a blind spot. Beyond that, she said nothing. Never saw her again either.