May 2017 TIOBE: Java and C lose 6%/6%

May 2017 May 2016 Change Programming Language Ratings Change
1 1 Java 14.639% -6.32%
2 2 C 7.002% -6.22%
3 3 C++ 4.751% -1.95%
4 5 change Python 3.548% -0.24%
5 4 change C# 3.457% -1.02%
6 10 change Visual Basic .NET 3.391% +1.07%
7 7 JavaScript 3.071% +0.73%
8 12 change Assembly language 2.859% +0.98%
9 6 change PHP 2.693% -0.30%
10 9 change Perl 2.602% +0.28%
11 8 change Ruby 2.429% +0.09%
12 13 change Visual Basic 2.347% +0.52%
13 15 change Swift 2.274% +0.68%
14 16 change R 2.192% +0.86%
15 14 change Objective-C 2.101% +0.50%
16 42 change Go 2.080% +1.83%
17 18 change MATLAB 2.063% +0.78%
18 11 change Delphi/Object Pascal 2.038% +0.03%
19 19 PL/SQL 1.676% +0.47%
20 22 change Scratch 1.668% +0.74%

Yeah, VB.net surely is at 3.4%, just like asm is surely at 2.9%, lol. Scratch at 1.7% and Delphi at 2%, why would you trust this crap?

JS moving up is not surprising, but VB.NET and Asm increasing in popularity? LOL WUT.

>>2
TIOBE is about search engine results. Even a poll on Stack Overflow would be more accurate.

I always loathe these attempts to compare how "innovative" the past is compared to the future, when the relative ease of mining entirely new fields of endeavor is not considered. One might as well complain that Humanity's days of invention are clearly behind us, because in the past thousand years we've come up with at most one invention on par with Fire, The Written Word, and Agriculture. And piffle, Computing is hardly that anything more than an obvious extension of other things anyhow.

We do not get to discover brand new fields of endeavor every day. Of course Go isn't as "innovative" as C... probably no computer language can be as innovative as C ever again. (Or Lisp, or a couple of others.) Even if one were to somehow be constructed (or simply pulled from the future somehow) it would almost certainly still have some sort of pedigree that could be traced whereby people could poo-poo its innovativeness. This is not a weakness, this is a strength of the richness of the field and how much exploration we've done. We don't get to discover new fundamental things every day precisely because we've done such a good job of exploration in so many fields, not because we've lost the ability to explore.