Re: Perl is sinking (TIOBE): all time low for Perl

TIOBE's methodology is wrong, read their definition. It is based on google, yet google has their own methodology for categorizing results and content, it is way more accurate than what TIOBE uses and it turns out it totally contradicts all the data the TIOBE has! Google says: http://tinyurl.com/d4wnsu

Google shows that C# is way above PHP, Python, Perl, Ruby yet TIOBE doesn't?

Look at what the TIOBE ranking is based on: The ratings are calculated by counting hits of the most popular search engines. The search query that is used is +"<language> programming"

This is a totally obviously WRONG methodology. Effectively TIOBE is slandering just about every language they rank.

Do not trust TIOBE, it is wrong and it even disagrees 100% with the results that GOOGLE has once the category of programming has been selected.

TIOBE is bad methodology FOR ALL LANGUAGES.

Comment on Re: Perl is sinking (TIOBE): all time low for Perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Perl is sinking (TIOBE): all time low for Perl
by ww (Archbishop) on Mar 08, 2009 at 21:57 UTC

even

big G's rankings

CPAN

Check the dropdown box for "related to perl" at AM's Google link, http://tinyurl.com/d4wnsu which doesn't even offer "CPAN" (Of course, that might mean we refer people there with a caution against "reinventing the wheel" so effectively that that search is irrelevant?)

The default display shows the red language at a very low (and only slowly rising) "general interest" level. Based on analysis with the Mark I eyeball, the delta_rate (relative to category) may have been highest in mid-2005, while the all-time, so-far high "relative to category" appears to have been during late-2006, after which it trends lower to midway into the third quarter of 2008. In the overall "interest" tab, the same language appears to have pretty much flatlined since mid-2005. Does any of that strike you as probative of anything substantive?

Many, perhaps most, single-issue methodologies for ranking anything as amorphous as "popularity" have serious flaws. IMO, that includes what -- for this particular issue --- may be better than most: the job search technique mentioned below by Gavin.

Update: Fixed (s/slow/low/) typo.

[reply]
[d/l]


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks