Re: TIOBE index

[Marco <prenom_nomus@yahoo.com>]

On Mar 8, 3:04 pm, jonathan <johns...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:53 am, Gautier write-only <gautier_niou...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hello,
>
> > From time to time I'm looking at the TIOBE Programming Community Index
> >  http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
> > The results, for long, are not very glorious for Ada, but I told
> > myself if was like it was.
> > For instance the latest ranking for Pascal, Fortran and Ada are:
>
> >   Tiobe ranking
> >   --------------
> >   Pascal  0.603%
> >   Fortran 0.563%
> >   Ada     0.376%
>
> > Now, I spent a few minutes to look at the figures myself, following
> > the famous citation "The only statistics you can trust are those you
> > falsified yourself".
> > So I made the search engine queries as described there:
> >  http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/tpci_definition...
> > including 1-year time windowing when available.
> > Here are the results (the simple queries without time windowing give
> > similar results):
>
> >         Google     Google Blogs  MSN        Yahoo!      Wikipedia
> > YouTube
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Pascal  2'020'000  25'027        3'170'000  25'200'000  1'664      232
> > Fortran 1'510'000  11'768        1'640'000  7'900'000   949        113
> > Ada     2'140'000  110'310       2'670'000  49'300'000  1'764      70
>
> > With the weights being 23% for each engine, except YouTube with 7%, it
> > is obviously impossible to have Ada's ranking that is lower than
> > Fortran's and even than Pascal's.
> > Funny thing: the weights sum up to more than 100%, so don't forget to
> > divide by the sum of weights!
> > If you take for instance Pascal's ranking as a reference, the rankings
> > would be actually the following:
> >   Pascal  0.603%
> >   Fortran 0.294%
> >   Ada     0.668% <- uh-oh, almost the "A" category...
>
> Thanks Gautier ... I hadn't realized how silly
> the TIOBE index is until you explained how it works.
> Another data point:
>
> http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/projects#languageos

When Assembler was listed quite high (when is the last time you used a
OSS project written in assembler!) I noticed this:
"broken it down by language using source lines of code."

with SLOC it needs to be normalized between languages for example
assign the factor 1.0 to C and have other factors based from this one.

"Effective lines of code represent a metric independent of code and
language style."

I couldn't find any factor comparison tables on the WWW.