On 9/27/06, ara.t.howard / noaa.gov <ara.t.howard / noaa.gov> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure everyone takes the time to search the internet for an answer -
> > at least I see a lot of questions which could be easily answered by a quick
> > google search.  But the point is well taken - some people do.
> >
> > I would also argue that the numbers are affected by the complexity of the
> > language (the more complex a language, the more likely people will have
> > questions about it),
>
> check out the ocaml list - it's completely empty.  the language is extrememly
> complex (if you're coming from procedural/oo world).
>
> check out the php lists.  php is astoundingly simply.
>
> my theory: less talently programmer are attracted to easier
> languages/frameworks.  they also ask a lot of questions.  very talented
> programmers are attracted to highly abstract (eg powerful/concise) languages.
> they don't tend to ask as many questions.  for evidence scan the rails lists -
> there the signal to noise ratio dwarfs that of ruby-talk.

signal/noise or noise/signal?

> ruby-talk, for that
> matter, has a volume thousands of times greater than that of the ocaml lists.
> and this is inversely related to the age of each project rails < ruby < ocaml.
> interesting.

How would rate the quality of the docs for these various projects? How
much of a factor do you think that plays?

---John