Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Sean O'Dell wrote:
> 
>>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>
>>>I agree it's more interesting.  But volume of mindshare, and growth
>>>of mindshare, is interesting to both industrialists and archivists.
>>>What is Ruby's future?
>>
>>This is out of the context of my suggestion.  That's another property
>>to consider, and a valid one, but it has nothing to do with finding
>>people who have switched away from Ruby.
> 
> Huh?  If they switched out of Ruby because they didn't perceive it as having
> a strong growth potential, that's certainly relevant.  Be careful not to
> define everyone's language priorities as identical to your own.  People in
> mainstream industry don't decide things solely on narrow technical merits,
> they also look at "size of the bandwagon," because it tends to imply how the
> GUI, tools, skilled labor markets, and enterprise support are going to go.

Then add that to your evaluation.  It's entirely a subjective task.

>>If you're interested in knowing why people have left Ruby for another
>>language, as a consideration to help you evaluate it, I would ignore
>>the opinions of people who have no opportunity to even try Ruby in
>>the first place.
> 
> But how much do they have to try before they abandon?

I think the person doing the evaluation can decide that for themselves. 
  If they want to count people who saw the name Ruby in an article and 
decided it was a silly name, they can count that, if they wish.  Or they 
can count people who have actually done one or two small projects with 
it and then gave it up.  It's up to the evaluator.

	Sean O'Dell