OK, to end this (very interesting ) discussion, I suggest you take a look at the SQL Standard[^]. You'll notice that SQL is called "Database Language SQL" and if you scroll down to chapter 4.20, you'll see how SQL interfaces with "standard programming languages". I guess you can make a case that SQL can still be called a "non-standard programming language" but the SQL standard itself never does that.
I voted 4-5, but as I read the rest of the comments on here, I realized I forgot some. Of course, I wear many hats at work - I'm an embedded developer on ARM and x86 processors, I'm the "web guy" for internal tools (and regularly assist the "web/IT guy" for customer-facing tools), and I'm also the internal PC tools guy, which means the following:
Since most developers these days are web developers (at least, part time), that puts at least 3 programming languages up there right away. And, as the primary coding language (C# in your and my cases), it's not uncommon for a shop to have 2 or three. My place of work had VB6, VBScript, C#, and VB.Net when I started there 4.5 years ago. We've all but scrapped the VB6 and VBScript, so that gets us down to 2 primary languages, but there's a new initiative where we're experimenting with Python, Ruby, Ruby on Rails (are those separate languages?), and a few others. So, very quickly, our language count is going to jump up.
The ones who are "bragging" are the ones who are counting languages that are <i>not</i> <i><b>programming</b></i> languages, like plain old SQL, HTML, XML, XHTML, and maybe even counting <i>concepts</i> like ASP.NET, Ajax and such as "programming languages".
But, 4-5, most definitely would be common.
Hey! There's a BUG on this entry form! I copied my text to notepad, then pasted it back, and all angled brackets are converted on insert to ampersand + "gt" or "lt" plus semi-colin. I didn't notice this until /after/ I'd posted. Ugh!
Again, a good poll that could have been even better with some of the options. There are options for 10-12, 12-15, etc up to 30* but there's no 0 option?
There are a few people who don't regularly get our hands on code. Personally, I voted 1 because I use SQL** nearly everyday. I don't use Java regularly enough for it to count here, and my C# use is even lesser. Roger Wright, for instance, might be one of our regular members who might have found a '0' option useful.
"This is a programming site!" and all that, yeah, but after all is said and done, I would expect more 0s than honest 30s.
* Come, now, I would expect 15 to be extreme, but 30+ is a bald-faced lie
** Despite what some might say, IMO it counts as a language and it appears on the Wikipedia link
I had to check 4-5 because I am currently under sentence to write an application in Visual FoxPro. For compatibility, I have to use version 8, which rubs just a bit of salt into this gaping wound.
It matters little - what's hell +/- an ember?
Anyone else similarly screwed by management orders? [forced to use a language which is being dropped, is incompatible with the common paradigms (like .NET), and comes from an era when scope was . . . ah, never mind].
The $(*&$)( we do for money. Stupid necessities of life.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment. Sadder still, if that's where you need to find it." - Balboos HaGadol
I support 4 major projects and countless modules all using VB6 and classic ASP. I am the sole developer at a really small software/consulting company. I just can't justify moving these applications to .NET when the VB6 runtime is still being included in Win7, not to mention creating a headache for existing installed customers. The only downside is that I am limiting my marketability, should I need to find another job. (that and the shame and humiliation one receives on this forum for admitting to still working in VB6)