On 9/17/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kevork Krozian</b> <<a href="mailto:Kroset@novell1.fhc.vic.edu.au">Kroset@novell1.fhc.vic.edu.au</a>> wrote:<br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Check out <a href="http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm">http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm</a> for a "league table" of language popularity.<br>The order of popularity starting from the top is Java, C , (Visual) Basic, PHP .... with python at Number 8.
<br>Scratch is 2new to be listed it seems - even in the top 50.</blockquote><div><br>Kevork,<br>It worries me that you present this league table in the context of a discussion about the merits of programming languages for children, without seeing the need for an accompanying argument.
<br><br>I point this out not just to be difficult but because I don't agree with the unstated implication that vocational factors ought to trump educational factors - surely something else needs to be said when such as table is presented?
<br><br>ie. what weight ought to be assigned to the league table<br>note their disclaimer: "Observe that the TIOBE index is not about the <i>best</i> programming
language or the language in which <i>most lines of code</i> have been written."<br><a href="http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm">http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm</a><br><br>I would have thought that Harvard University using scratch as an introduction to their Java programming course ought to count for something
<br> </div></div>-- <br>Bill Kerr<br><a href="http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/">http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/</a><br><a href="http://www.users.on.net/~billkerr/">http://www.users.on.net/~billkerr/</a><br>skype: billkerr2006