The research methodology in this blog post is fundamentally flawed. The author only counts how many people move from X to Y, but he doesn't count how many of them do not move at all. The whole diagonal of his (sample) transition matrix are actually missing values, but he treats them as zeroes. This greatly distorts the equilibrium distribution. As a result, he misinterprets each equilibrium probability as the "future…
The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
101–110 of 193 posts
Re: The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
#102Well the fact that C is going so strong guarantees we'll be dealing with easily preventable bugs for the next 100 years
All software has bugs. Any half arsed developer can create a lot of them in any language. C alone doesn't guarantee anything. Heck maybe there's fewer because C devs don't get lulled into thinking the language has their back?
Re: The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
#103The Python/Ruby axis are interesting. You've got over twice as many Python to Erlang posts out there...and a fraction of the Python to Elixir's. Ruby has the opposite. A bunch of Ruby to Elixir and very few Ruby to Erlangs. I wonder why that is?
Re: The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
#104I love golang, but I hate trying to search HN articles for the word go... I need a find go but not ago search button in FireFox ;) grep go | grep -v ago
Re: The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
#105The Python/Ruby axis are interesting. You've got over twice as many Python to Erlang posts out there...and a fraction of the Python to Elixir's. Ruby has the opposite. A bunch of Ruby to Elixir and very few Ruby to Erlangs. I wonder why that is?
Re: The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
#106The research methodology in this blog post is fundamentally flawed. The author only counts how many people move from X to Y, but he doesn't count how many of them do not move at all. The whole diagonal of his (sample) transition matrix are actually missing values, but he treats them as zeroes. This greatly distorts the equilibrium distribution. As a result, he misinterprets each equilibrium probability as the "future…
I wouldn't call that a "flaw" so much as an "entirely different question".
That there is the same absolute number of people choosing to stay within every language studied.
His analysis would only be correct if the number of people who choose to stay with Java at any moment is equal to the number of people who choose to stay with Rust. That is absurd and hence the eigenvector is meaningless.
Doesn't exactly matter much given that this is just a bit of fun on a blog post though. :P
Re: The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn't technical rather political. If you want to fix UNIX security issues related to C, first you need to convince kernel developers across all UNIX variants to move away from C. Then even a fully modernized UNIX kernel needs to provide support to unsafe POSIX APIs.
As we all know, Windows is totally secure, GUIs are awesome and the Burroughs architecture is unique.
Re: The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
#108I love golang, but I hate trying to search HN articles for the word go... I need a find go but not ago search button in FireFox ;) grep go | grep -v ago
Re: The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
#109I love golang, but I hate trying to search HN articles for the word go... I need a find go but not ago search button in FireFox ;) grep go | grep -v ago
Re: The eigenvector of “Why we moved from language X to language Y”
#110I love golang, but I hate trying to search HN articles for the word go... I need a find go but not ago search button in FireFox ;) grep go | grep -v ago