1. 15
  1.  

  2. 6

    An interesting set of notes. I’m dubious about how much you can rely on this sort of thing. It leaves out a vast swath of the industry - e.g. private repos. I know several companies with huge and established Ruby code bases so I’m not sure I’d say “avoid Ruby”.

    I think it’s more interesting to consider what communities are aggressively adopting open source policies. For example, science likes python (e.g. NumPy, SciPy, Jupyter) and python is heavily represented on Github. Does that mean science has embraced uploading more content to places like Github in an open fashion? (Caveat: correlation =/= causation, etc etc).

    1. 10

      The incredible bias here is that Ruby is the core language of GitHub. Their first big project was Rails. At some time, the only community purely happening at GitHub was Ruby. It can only go down from there.

      What is happening in this graph is the whole world moving to GitHub, expanding its size extremely and fixing the bias that GitHub had. You can’t read anything notable in that graph. They even admit that factor and still draw that conclusion.

      1. 9

        Even then it’s still not accurate just yet. For every Ruby/JavaScript/Python company there’s 10 Java/.NET ones that we never hear about because they aren’t really part of the GitHub/startup/Twitter/HN sphere.

        1. 2

          Yep, very much this.