"widely recogni(z)ed" ?
By whom? By Tim Bunce, whose two 5 and 4 year old articles you care to cite? Look at the long term trend. Look at
I'm not saying TIOBE is great/right. I'm saying the "world out there" thinks it is valid. Therefore I'm saying you are wrong.
Look at who's citing TIOBE to make a point. Want to re-educate the world? Good luck.
I could go on almost indefinitely, but I have already won the "I can post more links than you"-contest. And all this because of what? Because you are ashamed to shout out you are using Perl? Because we cannot simply state on our CPAN, on Perlmonks (we have hereby already - good), on Foswiki/TWiki/... pages something like "built with the cool Perl programming language"?
Don't like TIOBE? Ok. Try this - shows an equally bad situation for Perl. And you know what? It perfectly correlates with the TIOBE:
Yeah. Sure. All "them is wrong". But we have a community whereas Python has not (I really heard this on the last YAPC and the last 2 Perl workshops. Perhaps you would like to search for "foo community" instead of "foo programming"? You know what? Even THAT correlates.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
Thanks chromatic for explaining that graph. (not to me, but to others).
Care to look at
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22PHP%20tutorial%22
and
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22Python%20tutorial%22&cmpt=q
These graphs are perfectly consistent with observations on TIOBE - see the respective graphs there (google trends of tutorial searches denote "future interest", while TIOBE denotes "present interest")
If Google trends fall (in absolute numbers - see below), the language popularity will fall. If they remain constant, language popularity will grow. There is a - thin - margin of fall up to which present popularity will remain at least more or less constant. C is a good example for that. If my calculations are correct a factor of 12 in Google trends decrease is the threshold for that situation.
Now to your questions: The normalized Google trends graphs show a decrease by a factor of 25. Which means that we're good if the absolute number of searches on Google has grown 25 times since February 2004. Right?
Well nothing easier than that. Enter Google annual search statistics. 1st try http://www.statisticbrain.com/google-searches/ 2007-2011 we have a growth from 1,200,000,000/day to 4,717,000,000/day. My head says that's a factor of 4, my pocket calculator says ~3.93
Surely you want now to present 2004-2013 Google annual search statistics that will suggest a factor of 25. Be my guest.
| [reply] |
Look at who's citing TIOBE to make a point. Want to re-educate the world? Good luck.
:) Can you post more links?
I'm curious to see if the obscureness/quality goes up or down
| [reply] |
Yes, I can post more links.
http://modulecounts.com/
Of course now the do-not-see-hear-speak fraction will say "aaah but that is not relevant/flawed..."
I'm sure someone will come up with an argument why modulecounts is irrelevant to justify inaction.
| [reply] |
Of course, i've said that even in my original post that TIOBE is flawed. The intent of the exercise is to rob unscrupulous journalists of a source to be used in decrying Perl's death, or in less nicer words: Get people to shut up, so we can deal with real issues. :)
Edit: Reading your links it seems that the people behind TIOBE even approve of such activities. :D | [reply] |