From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: fd7c9,fb1b2917558b21ef X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 103376,8966a1b579ddb182 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gid2832dde05d,gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Gautier write-only Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Programming language popularity Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <9421e251-fd4e-42d6-88ff-e95998349ffd@c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> References: <2010Apr2.193617@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <32e4e235-6e74-4914-b0fa-92dec3279b51@5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.62.139.212 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271353864 23463 127.0.0.1 (15 Apr 2010 17:51:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.62.139.212; posting-account=gRqrnQkAAAAC_02ynnhqGk1VRQlve6ZG User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 SeaMonkey/2.0.4,gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.forth:17640 comp.lang.ada:10967 Date: 2010-04-15T10:51:04-07:00 List-Id: On Apr 3, 11:46=A0am, "Martin Krischik" wrote: > Tiobe sells services for curly braced languages. =A0So I am not all that = =A0 > convinced about Tiobe - especialy after they removed usenet in favour of = =A0 > youtube. I can understand adding an addition source - but removing an =A0 > existing source for which all the scripts are already written. That sound= s =A0 > like fine tuning the statistic so the right result is reported. It doesn't explain everything - as you notice later... For instance usenet is partially mirrored by sites which in their turn appear in standard web searches. Nevertheless I plan to introduce groups.google.com into the LPI as it reflects not only the whole usenet but also many popular alternative forums. > At comp.lang.ada we recently did our own stat which too comes to differen= t =A0 > result: http://lang-index.sourceforge.net using similar tests as Tiobe. I need to stress there that the LPI's results can be verified and reproduced, and that all intermediary results are published. Now where the differences comes from, since currently the methods are very close ? Apart from slight changes in confidence factors, perhaps the main reason relies in the way tiobe's data are collected, which seems to be very time-consuming (cf the FAQ). Perhaps there are typos: for instance, Fortran made a jump from some 0.35% to 0.563% in March (with a nice headline about good old Fortran being back in the top 20 !) and the moved back to 0.35%. Although such movement may well be caused by some issue in one search engine or the other... There seem also to be a accumulation of biases. Perhaps something else... Anyway, I would not buy the data without a full disclosure or an audit. My 0.02 CHF G.