http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

d up from 31 in march.  Just below scala, sas, and fortran.  No doubt noisy, and possibly news about Andrei leaving Facebook had an influence.  They changed the algorithm to be more tolerant of noise, which has had an impact on the results (which might also be a hint about the degree of precision in such an exercise) but don't say how that affected D, if at all.

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 03:26:37 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>
> d up from 31 in march.  Just below scala, sas, and fortran.  No doubt noisy, and possibly news about Andrei leaving Facebook had an influence.  They changed the algorithm to be more tolerant of noise, which has had an impact on the results (which might also be a hint about the degree of precision in such an exercise) but don't say how that affected D, if at all.

By noisy you mean hype?

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 04:00:02 UTC, Israel wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 03:26:37 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>>
>> d up from 31 in march.  Just below scala, sas, and fortran.  No doubt noisy, and possibly news about Andrei leaving Facebook had an influence.  They changed the algorithm to be more tolerant of noise, which has had an impact on the results (which might also be a hint about the degree of precision in such an exercise) but don't say how that affected D, if at all.
>
> By noisy you mean hype?

Having a high element that doesn't relate to the underlying phenomenon one is trying to measure.  That's intrinsic to the problem domain, at least if you approach it in this way.

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 03:26:37 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>
> d up from 31 in march.  Just below scala, sas, and fortran.  No doubt noisy, and possibly news about Andrei leaving Facebook had an influence.  They changed the algorithm to be more tolerant of noise, which has had an impact on the results (which might also be a hint about the degree of precision in such an exercise) but don't say how that affected D, if at all.

Really, TIOBE doesn't mean much, but it is interesting to see that D is _way_ above Rust (which is barely in the top 50), and Go didn't make the top 50 at all. I typically hear way more about Go and Rust from folks outside of the newsgroup than I ever hear about D. So, if anything, that may just show how unreliable TIOBE is as a real measurement of language popularity or usage, but it is interesting that we're that high up in comparison to the newer languages that we usually get compared with.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 10:55:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 03:26:37 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>>
>> d up from 31 in march.  Just below scala, sas, and fortran.  No doubt noisy, and possibly news about Andrei leaving Facebook had an influence.  They changed the algorithm to be more tolerant of noise, which has had an impact on the results (which might also be a hint about the degree of precision in such an exercise) but don't say how that affected D, if at all.
>
> Really, TIOBE doesn't mean much, but it is interesting to see that D is _way_ above Rust (which is barely in the top 50), and Go didn't make the top 50 at all. I typically hear way more about Go and Rust from folks outside of the newsgroup than I ever hear about D. So, if anything, that may just show how unreliable TIOBE is as a real measurement of language popularity or usage, but it is interesting that we're that high up in comparison to the newer languages that we usually get compared with.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Yes.  TIOBE probably wrong about popularity, and although it is in our favour, it's probably a mistake to point to TIOBE, and indeed nobody here does.