On 09/14/2011 02:21 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 09/14/2011 12:48 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
But what makes your statistics more "valid" than Tiobe's? As Walter
said, there are multiple ways to measure popularity, and every one is
guaranteed to dissatisfy some people.
I demonstrated the fundamental problem with their methodology.
Words like "demonstrated" or "clarified" are a bit exaggerated within
this discussion, as is "flawed" when describing what Tiobe does. Not to
mention the implication that I lack integrity, which is quite a bit out
of character even by the standard set by the corrosiveness of your past
posts. Is defending your view of Tiobe worth all this?
The statistics I quoted were varied, simple, and easy to verify.
They're not ground truth; for example, it's known there is a lot of
noise in Google's estimate number of pages. For example, searching for
the exact phrase "scala programming" yields 149,000 estimated results,
whereas searching for the exact phrase "scala programming language"
yields 418,000 results. This is incorrect because the latter query
includes the former. To some consolation, the relationship between the
estimated result set sizes for e.g. "d programming" and "d programming
language" looks more plausible (343,000 vs. 199,000).
Andrei
