|
|
|
|
|
|
by slucidi
4337 days ago
|
|
|
> In the spirit of keeping this in good taste, i'll try to phrase this nicely: TIOBE isn't great, but at least you know what their algorithm is, and it is certainly not worth implying you would normally _not_ be nice to someone for referencing it. |
|
|
That is just you reading things into that which i did not mean to imply at all. ;)
I have strong things to say about TIOBE, which could be expressed with extreme accuracy in a very concise manner, and match reality with no deviation. However to do so would be considered impolite by many who have not yet delved into the details of what TIOBE does. As such the above is my attempt to do so politely, sacrificing some accuracy.
As you showed me with your lead though, i seem to have already lost a massive amount of accuracy.
> TIOBE isn't great, but at least you know what their algorithm is
That property is not helpful when they themselves are unwilling to warn readers about the brokenness of their algorithm, and their definition also does not make this obvious. In fact, TIOBE happily publishes their "results" as facts and many people believe them.