December 2002 comp.lang.* stats

[Aaron K. Johnson]

In message <3E32A7D9.B5B3D214 at engcorp.com>, Peter Hansen wrote:
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > 
> > What you see below are pure and simple the number of unique posters to
> each
> > comp.lang.whatever hierarchy in December 2002.
> > 
> > comp.lang.java 5347
> > comp.lang.c++ 3075
> > comp.lang.perl 2136
> > comp.lang.javascript 2130
> > comp.lang.python 1996
> > comp.lang.basic 1758
> > comp.lang.c 1670
> > comp.lang.labview 958
> > comp.lang.clipper 922
> ....
> > comp.lang.modula3 30
> > comp.lang.oberon 26
> > comp.lang.modula2 23
> ....
> 
> Thanks Aaron.  I'm forced to admit that these numbers *appear* to 
> correspond to my purely subjective feeling as to the relative
> popularity, in a very vague way, of these languages.   It will
> be interesting - if you can finish refining the script and then
> "lock it down" - to compare the results over time.
> 
> I'm also intrigued by the labview and clipper numbers, which are
> as I understand the only two purely proprietary languages listed.
> National Instruments deserves some credit here, even if it's just
> because LabVIEW is such an abomination to use for complex software
> that it requires much more online help than the others, relative 
> to its actual usage. ;-)
> 
> -Peter

Thanks for your comments Peter. Your original comments were excellent
criticisms that I feel brought the script out of its primitive, unscientific
state of statistical cloudiness! at least now, we have a quasi-scientific
approach. now to the spam problem (I doubt I want to work much more on this
though ;)  )

Best,
Aaron.