> There is no movement, in fact, among languages ranked within our Top 10.
> the difficulty of growth is proportional to the rankings themselves – as one rises, so does the other.
OF COURSE this will be the case when your analysis is looking at total cumulative usage instead of current usage (i.e. deltas in cumulative usage)!
For example, say language X has been around 20 years, and language Y 5. Language Y could be 10 times more popular than language X today, but if the analysis is counting 20 years of accumulated code in X, X will easily rank higher.
I hunted for their methodology, and found none. Nothing they say indicates they are doing delta analysis. Since such analysis would not be trivial and be a lot more expensive, I'm pretty sure they'd mention it if they were doing it.
To corroborate my criticism, the TIOBE Index, which measures signals where accumulation is less a factor, shows much more movement over time, with languages rising and falling as one would expect: http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index.
> the difficulty of growth is proportional to the rankings themselves – as one rises, so does the other.
OF COURSE this will be the case when your analysis is looking at total cumulative usage instead of current usage (i.e. deltas in cumulative usage)!
For example, say language X has been around 20 years, and language Y 5. Language Y could be 10 times more popular than language X today, but if the analysis is counting 20 years of accumulated code in X, X will easily rank higher.
I hunted for their methodology, and found none. Nothing they say indicates they are doing delta analysis. Since such analysis would not be trivial and be a lot more expensive, I'm pretty sure they'd mention it if they were doing it.
To corroborate my criticism, the TIOBE Index, which measures signals where accumulation is less a factor, shows much more movement over time, with languages rising and falling as one would expect: http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index.