Now 13 (percentage up slightly)

http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm
http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 09:41:31 +0200, janderson <askme@me.com> wrote:

> Now 13 (percentage up slightly)
>
> http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm

IIRC, D has been ahead of Delphi for quite some time now?

-- 
Best regards,
  Vladimir                          mailto:thecybershadow@gmail.com

Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 09:41:31 +0200, janderson <askme@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> Now 13 (percentage up slightly)
>>
>> http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm
> 
> IIRC, D has been ahead of Delphi for quite some time now?
> 

I think your right.  My mistake.

janderson wrote

> Now 13 (percentage up slightly)

IMO the community can push D all the way up to 1 by simply providing a html-interface to this newsgroups on several servers, and have google display their advertisings on the pages of that html-interfaces.

-manfred

Manfred Nowak wrote:
> janderson wrote
> 
>> Now 13 (percentage up slightly)
> 
> IMO the community can push D all the way up to 1 by simply providing a html-interface to this newsgroups on several servers, and have google display their advertisings on the pages of that html-interfaces.
> 
> -manfred

You are probably right however that it itself may increase the popularity of D.

Manfred Nowak a écrit :
> janderson wrote
> 
>> Now 13 (percentage up slightly)
> 
> IMO the community can push D all the way up to 1 by simply providing a html-interface to this newsgroups on several servers, and have google display their advertisings on the pages of that html-interfaces.


IMHO doing an action only to increase Tiobe rating is cheating, which is ridiculous.

renoX


> 
> -manfred

renoX wrote

> IMHO doing an action only to increase Tiobe rating is cheating, which is ridiculous.

Every index based on buzz is vulnerable to spam.

After Google noticed such spam in 2004 and cancelled it out, Tiobe reintroduced that spam by including it from MSN and Yahoo. Despite of this, Tiobe considers the index as based on "strategic data".

If you cannot falsify that those "strategic data" sets are built up by cheating, as you say, then what is the value of that index?

-manfred

Manfred Nowak wrote:
> renoX wrote
> 
>> IMHO doing an action only to increase Tiobe rating is cheating,
>> which is ridiculous.
> 
> Every index based on buzz is vulnerable to spam.
> 
> After Google noticed such spam in 2004 and cancelled it out, Tiobe reintroduced that spam by including it from MSN and Yahoo. Despite of this, Tiobe considers the index as based on "strategic data".
> 
> If you cannot falsify that those "strategic data" sets are built up by cheating, as you say, then what is the value of that index?
> 
> -manfred

If you look at the list, although subject to error, the languages you would expect are at the top.  At the very least its a fuzzy indication of where some languages are compared to others at least in terms of search ability/presents on the web.

I have a feeling that D should be much lower on the list as many of the other languages have been used in more commercial applications then D.

-Joel

janderson wrote:
> I have a feeling that D should be much lower on the list as many of the other languages have been used in more commercial applications then D.

The Tiobe index is also deliberately skewed towards the last 12 months. So it will tend to measure what the current 'buzz' is on a language, not how heavily used it was 10 years ago.

janderson wrote

> its a fuzzy indication

At the very most its a fuzzy indication, but it isn't even presented as such.

Would you give a dime for an index of 50 different web servers, where someone pinged them once a month, declares those ping values to be "strategic data" and presents some diagrams showing how the ping values are changing over the years?

Obviously one can produce a similar argument, that such an index must be at least (put eupehemistic words here), because as expected those servers located more closely have indeed a better index than those located further away.

-manfred