On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:24:59 PM UTC-5, Vincent St-Amour wrote: > If we add up the "Racket" and "Scheme" numbers (the latter being, I > suspect, mostly Racket), the total is pretty close to Ruby. I find that > amusing. :) > > Actually, I'm curious what the numbers look like if you count "PLT > Scheme" towards Racket. > > Vincent
In previous blog posts, I included aggregate lines for things like "lisp family", "ml family", etc. but skipped it this time out of laziness. I just ran the Racket program with "PLT Scheme" and got the following: $ racket pl_popularity.rkt Path=/search?q=%22written%20in%20PLT%20Scheme%22 Num=4370 Path=/search?q=%22programmed%20in%20PLT%20Scheme%22 Num=2 Path=/search?q=%22developed%20in%20PLT%20Scheme%22 Num=518 Path=/search?q=%22implemented%20in%20PLT%20Scheme%22 Num=2120 (PLT Scheme 7010) For comparison, here's the Racket data: Path=/search?q=%22written%20in%20racket%22 Num=6210 Path=/search?q=%22programmed%20in%20racket%22 Num=1520 Path=/search?q=%22developed%20in%20racket%22 Num=5090 Path=/search?q=%22implemented%20in%20racket%22 Num=3330 (racket 16150) By the way, if anyone runs the program - it's purposefully slow to avoid getting banned by Google, so the random wait per query is rather long. I thought it was broken because it took so long to get the first results, and I'm the author, so I thought I'd pass on that info :) Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
