Code density in APL

Its generally accepted that programmers write the same amount of lines in any language per year.
Why hadn't everyone switched to APL yet?

gb2reddit

Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:

golem$ ed

?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?

---
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage.  Ed is
generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm
the novice with verbosity.

>>1
Reason one: Code is written once, modified ten times, and read one hundred times. So brevity of expression is nice, but not the biggest concern.

Reason two: APL's density evaporates somewhat as you move away from mathematical applications. It sucks tremendously for writing user interfaces, which is where most of the effort goes in today's programs.

PS. The financial industry already tried switching to APL. Ask them how it worked.

>>4
Why hadn't everyone switched to Python then?

>>5
Because they're stupid.

>>5
Guido van Rossum?

>>1
Because nobody wants to buy special keyboards to try out a language that may or may not even be useful for them to know.

Because APL's descendents might as well be stealth languages for all the information freely available on them.

Because this argument does not make any impression on managers or programmers anyway. These people regularly do projects in Java, C, and C++, for all that it makes no sense in terms of programmer productivity to do so.

>>4
PS. The financial industry already tried switching to APL. Ask them how it worked.
Tell me more, please.

run length encoded brainfuck has higher code density.

>>10
brainfuck with any level of compression isn't equivalent to conventional languages.
 Its like reinventing the wheel with dirt and pieces of shit scrapped together.

>>11
Its like reinventing the wheel with dirt and pieces of shit scrapped together.
A bout of laughter spilled forth from my belly.

Its generally accepted that programmers write the same amount of lines in any language per year. ^{citation needed}

>>5
Google's working on it. Have patience.