http://i-programmer.info/news/98-languages/10859-redmonk-rankings-reveal-the-languages-we-love.html -- Andrei

On Saturday, 24 June 2017 at 22:05:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> http://i-programmer.info/news/98-languages/10859-redmonk-rankings-reveal-the-languages-we-love.html -- Andrei

It looks like D almost never moved on those rankings.

On Sunday, 25 June 2017 at 00:52:14 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 June 2017 at 22:05:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> http://i-programmer.info/news/98-languages/10859-redmonk-rankings-reveal-the-languages-we-love.html -- Andrei
>
> It looks like D almost never moved on those rankings.

It is flawed. Clearly, there should be far more Go github projects than D.

On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 09:30:04 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 June 2017 at 00:52:14 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
>> On Saturday, 24 June 2017 at 22:05:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> http://i-programmer.info/news/98-languages/10859-redmonk-rankings-reveal-the-languages-we-love.html -- Andrei
>>
>> It looks like D almost never moved on those rankings.
>
> It is flawed. Clearly, there should be far more Go github projects than D.

As in, plotting ranks does not make much sense... If they plotted actual number of projects then it would be useful.

On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 09:30:04 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> It is flawed. Clearly, there should be far more Go github projects than D.

It is correct. I assume you looked at the first Red Chart. That is a very, very old one. The article even mentioned that this.

You need to look down for the newer from 2017 and Go has clearly plenty more git projects.

They are comparing the old, newer and newest ( in that order ).

On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 09:51:37 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
> They are comparing the old, newer and newest ( in that order ).

Yes, that was confusing too. But it makes no sense to plot ranking on a linear scale, they should plot actual numbers. The plot they provide says nothing meaningful about the relative position of the various languages IMO.

Unfortunately for "D", it is also a language that is often misclassified in these shallow analyses. For instance the ".d" file extension is used for other things than dlang etc.

And does it actually make any sense to compare languages like Python and C++? Completely different domains.

On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 10:14:42 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 09:51:37 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
>> They are comparing the old, newer and newest ( in that order ).
>
> Yes, that was confusing too. But it makes no sense to plot ranking on a linear scale, they should plot actual numbers. The plot they provide says nothing meaningful about the relative position of the various languages IMO.
>
> Unfortunately for "D", it is also a language that is often misclassified in these shallow analyses. For instance the ".d" file extension is used for other things than dlang etc.
>
> And does it actually make any sense to compare languages like Python and C++? Completely different domains.

This is only partially true, as I know from a friend, he is physicist @ DESY Hamburg, he is programming exactly with this pair of languages for data analysis.
(Could not convince him to try D jet :-))

Regards mt.

On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 10:23:05 UTC, Martin Tschierschke wrote:
> This is only partially true, as I know from a friend, he is physicist @ DESY Hamburg, he is programming exactly with this pair of languages for data analysis.
> (Could not convince him to try D jet :-))

If the comparison was broken down into usage domains (such as physics) then it could be quite interesting. Which languages are popular in different field and why?

Would interesting to know something about that.

But when all usage domains are included, and only one public source repository is taken into account, then it doesn't really say much.