39
\$\begingroup\$

I feel like we may have enough data on this site to meaningfully break programming languages into classes.

What I mean by classes is akin to Go's ranking system:

If a player can win 90% of even games against a 2 kyu player, the AGA believes he or she is 1.33 ranks higher, the EGF believes (s)he is 2.42 ranks higher, and the IGS believes (s)he is more than 3 ranks higher.

We may need to break the competition down into tags (e.g., a puzzle may have a different ranking system than a puzzle (cough, Bubblegum).

The use case for this would be to more reasonably compare your success - If a Python answer beats one in J, the author should be pretty proud. If Pyth beats Java by just a bit, the Java author should also be pretty happy with themselves (or the Pyth author ashamed).

Would anyone be interested in this endeavor?

\$\endgroup\$
15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It's an interesting idea, but I think most of us have already formed subjective opinions; for example, I consider Ruby, Python, Perl, etc. in a higher and fairly well-defined "class" than Java, Rust, etc. Nevertheless, if you do attempt something like this, I'd be very curious to see the results! (I have a language-detection script floating around somewhere, in a Github Gist I think, that could come in handy.) \$\endgroup\$ – Doorknob♦ Mar 25 '16 at 16:58
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ I think there are two (broad) schools of thought on what "success" means here in golf terms. One is getting the overall shortest by choosing the appropriate language for each task (choosing your tools). The other is finding the shortest given a certain tool (language). While I like to beat up on C# with Java as much as the next guy, it's not a true comparison across all golfs, because the real difference is (mainly) which builtins are there and how they're named. So I'm not sure I see how ranking each would help people in either school of thought judge their success. \$\endgroup\$ – Geobits Mar 25 '16 at 17:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ To echo what Geobits said -- defining the tasks that make up the metric is going to be extremely difficult and subject to much debate. Many languages are very close on the Hello World challenge, simply because "Hello, World!" (with or without the trailing ") is a valid program in dozens of languages. Or ones where a particular language has a clear built-in that leapfrogs it ahead of where it would "normally" sit. Challenges like that would skew the numbers incorrectly. Not that I'm against the idea, it just needs a lot of rigor. \$\endgroup\$ – AdmBorkBork Mar 25 '16 at 17:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @TimmyD Yes - and I have no statistical background, so I'd like to get someone with more stats knowledge on board before pursuing it. \$\endgroup\$ – Not that Charles Mar 25 '16 at 17:53
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ I honestly have no clue why this has been consistently downvoted so far. While the commenters have a point that it's going to be hard to figure out how to get the most meaningful data, I'm pretty sure that across all our code golfs we can find significant trends easily enough. It may be hard to determine with any certainty whether C# or Java is better for golfing, but I'm sure we can detect some fuzzy ranking. +1, I like the idea of trying to mine some data from our content. \$\endgroup\$ – Martin Ender Mar 25 '16 at 18:59
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @MartinBüttner, it's probably suspicion about motives. I'm fighting the temptation to downvote by reminding myself that we should assume good faith, but the context of previous meta questions by people who were pushing handicap systems does inevitably affect the subtext I read into this one. \$\endgroup\$ – Peter Taylor Mar 25 '16 at 19:20
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @PeterTaylor That's a good point, but I'd rather downvote the post making use of such a handicap system than an attempt to gather some interesting data from our challenges. \$\endgroup\$ – Martin Ender Mar 25 '16 at 19:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @PeterTaylor I am not very active in meta and haven't read that thread. I don't have motives aside from what is presented. \$\endgroup\$ – Not that Charles Mar 25 '16 at 20:01
  • 14
    \$\begingroup\$ @PeterTaylor Also, for the record, I think a handicap system is a terrible idea. \$\endgroup\$ – Not that Charles Mar 25 '16 at 20:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ Another reason is that it would be nice to see a language competition - some sort of aggregate of all the work folks have done to abuse languages. Where does Perl beat Ruby? Does D beat C? Where does TI-BASIC beat Mathematica? \$\endgroup\$ – Not that Charles Mar 25 '16 at 20:38
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I downvoted because, not only would this be very difficult and many people would disagree with the classes due to the subjectivity involved, but defining language classes opens the door to attempts to impose handicaps, which I am strongly against. \$\endgroup\$ – user45941 Mar 25 '16 at 21:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ We already have some data in response to this code challenge. \$\endgroup\$ – xnor Mar 25 '16 at 23:13
  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't see why people are so opposed to this. Everyone knows that some languages are golfier are other. Most golfers already have a vague sense of the ordering, and surely actual statistics are better. \$\endgroup\$ – xnor Mar 26 '16 at 4:29
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Seems like a fine idea to me. While it shouldn't be considered definitive, it'll probably be interesting. \$\endgroup\$ – isaacg Mar 26 '16 at 7:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @xnor Like I mentioned before, I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavor. The lines are too fuzzy to be able to create clear-cut classes, and there are lots of issues that skew the data such that the classes would not be meaningful (as I commented on Alex's answer). \$\endgroup\$ – user45941 Mar 29 '16 at 1:18
26
\$\begingroup\$

Elo ratings, treating pairs of submissions as games.

I'm using the Elo system here.

Essentially, the solution is find the best solutions in each language to each challenge, and then treat each pair of such solutions as a match between those two languages, with the winner being the shorter submission.

Languages with less than 10 entries are discarded, and languages have a starting rating of 1000.

One drawback of this system is that ELO favors more recent entries. To compensate, I used a relatively low K value, which makes updates slower, and so old answer count for more.

The data is from this query, courtesy of Alex A. To run the code, put the two code blocks below in files with the names given, put the query csv file in ratings.csv, and run parse.py

New results, with bug fix

In the old version of the code, there were two bugs:

  • Answers with hyperlinks in the header were not counted.

  • Languages with numbers in the name were not counted.

I have fixed both bugs. In doing so, the code now considers differently named versions of a language (e.g. Python 2.7 and Python 2) to be different languages. I don't think this is a major problem - allowing languages with numbers in the name is much more important.

Also, since many more answers are correctly parsed, more languages meet the threshold to be displayed.

Feburary 2021 Results:

Jelly:                            1921
05AB1E:                           1900
Stax:                             1853
MATL:                             1831
Neim:                             1807
GS2:                              1781
Husk:                             1778
Japt:                             1766
Canvas:                           1764
Gaia:                             1748
SOGL V0.12:                       1743
Pyke:                             1736
Brachylog:                        1703
MathGolf:                         1700
Actually:                         1697
Ohm v2:                           1689
2sable:                           1625
Jstx:                             1622
Convex:                           1610
Sesos:                            1604
Pyth:                             1602
Jolf:                             1602
APL:                              1593
Implicit:                         1586
RProgN 2:                         1574
Ohm:                              1566
V:                                1536
Noodel:                           1483
GolfScript:                       1476
k:                                1466
CJam:                             1466
Burlesque:                        1466
Charcoal:                         1456
J:                                1440
Vitsy:                            1428
Dyalog APL:                       1425
cQuents:                          1415
k4:                               1411
x86 machine code:                 1409
Keg:                              1405
Befunge:                          1393
𝔼𝕊𝕄𝕚𝕟:                            1368
Carrot:                           1361
Pushy:                            1353
Japt v2.0a0:                      1351
Pip:                              1349
TeaScript:                        1347
Retina:                           1346
Recursiva:                        1344
Alice:                            1336
TI:                               1331
APL+WIN:                          1331
K5:                               1308
Runic Enchantments:               1300
rs:                               1296
Stacked:                          1290
q/kdb+:                           1286
Perl 6:                           1281
Ahead:                            1271
Attache:                          1267
x86:                              1247
Triangular:                       1245
Braingolf:                        1244
Wolfram Language:                 1238
Jellyfish:                        1233
Add++:                            1224
Rebmu:                            1212
Maple:                            1210
Befunge 93:                       1209
33:                               1204
Julia 1.0:                        1198
Z80Golf:                          1192
O:                                1187
Labyrinth:                        1167
Ouroboros:                        1163
sed:                              1160
Beam:                             1154
Hexagony:                         1147
Cascade:                          1135
Bubblegum:                        1128
q:                                1126
dc:                               1118
Julia:                            1117
Snails:                           1113
Octave:                           1113
BBC Basic:                        1113
Regex:                            1105
jq:                               1103
MUMPS:                            1102
Octave / MATLAB:                  1101
Vim:                              1098
Ly:                               1097
Cheddar:                          1096
Gema:                             1094
Rebol:                            1089
Retina 0.8.2:                     1087
PostScript:                       1085
Proton:                           1076
PARI/GP:                          1069
R:                                1066
QBIC:                             1063
Matlab/Octave:                    1060
MY:                               1058
Tcl/Tk:                           1056
bc:                               1055
Perl:                             1051
ink:                              1043
Mathematica:                      1039
Bash + GNU utilities:             1037
Julia 0.6:                        1034
Ruby:                             1031
Ruby 1.9:                         1029
Sage:                             1026
Bash + coreutils:                 1026
8086 machine code:                1019
Bean:                             1014
Zsh:                              1008
GNU Sed:                          1007
PowerShell:                       1006
Windows PowerShell:               1004
Röda:                             1000
PHP 7:                            999
perl5.10:                         997
Underload:                        995
Element:                          993
Scala:                            992
ShapeScript:                      990
PowerShell v3+:                   987
Perl 5:                           986
MATLAB:                           982
Pure bash:                        980
Cardinal:                         978
Brian & Chuck:                976
Bash + Unix utilities:            976
Logo:                             963
Fourier:                          959
Erlang:                           957
ES6:                              951
JavaScript:                       950
Cubix:                            947
CoffeeScript:                     938
SmileBASIC 3:                     935
Bash:                             923
SmileBASIC:                       921
Gawk:                             921
Excel:                            913
Python 3.8:                       909
Awk:                              909
scheme:                           906
PowerShell v2+:                   904
Haskell:                          900
AppleScript:                      899
Groovy:                           896
Excel VBA:                        892
Google Sheets:                    888
Python 3.6:                       884
TXR Lisp:                         867
Assembly:                         865
ZX Spectrum BASIC:                864
JavaScript ES6:                   852
TeX:                              851
Red:                              848
PHP:                              842
Processing:                       829
AutoHotkey:                       828
HTML + JavaScript:                827
Python 2:                         826
Dart:                             826
Nim:                              821
Python:                           815
Java:                             809
Python 2.x:                       806
Python 3:                         803
Python 3.5:                       794
Icon:                             788
Forth:                            785
C99:                              785
Chip:                             782
SpecBAS:                          780
AutoIt:                           780
HTML:                             776
ECMAScript 6:                     774
Factor:                           772
Rexx:                             770
Node.js:                          766
Kotlin:                           760
C#:                               760
C:                                760
JS:                               758
MarioLANG:                        756
Cubically:                        755
Rust:                             747
Emacs Lisp:                       747
Hoon:                             745
AHK:                              745
Clojure:                          744
SQL:                              740
VBScript:                         733
Clean:                            730
Swift 4:                          729
SQF:                              728
Cobra:                            724
IBM/Lotus Notes Formula:          723
SAS:                              722
Racket:                           722
Java 8:                           722
OCaml:                            721
Pepe:                             720
Game Maker Language:              712
Yabasic:                          708
Brain:                            704
Tcl:                              701
Piet:                             696
Prolog:                           694
8th:                              687
Turing Machine Code:              685
Batch:                            685
Stata:                            683
Brainfuck:                        683
Small Basic:                      680
CSS:                              675
C# .NET:                          670
Python 2.7:                       653
Java 10:                          648
Common Lisp:                      643
SimpleTemplate:                   638
SWI:                              634
Elixir:                           632
F#:                               627
Hassium:                          626
Lua:                              620
Qbasic:                           609
C++14:                            608
VBA:                              600
TSQL:                             598
T:                                594
VB.NET:                           587
Java 7:                           582
Delphi:                           576
Go:                               575
Ceylon:                           574
Swift 3:                          570
C++11:                            562
Fortran:                          558
OIL:                              557
Windows Batch:                    555
Swift:                            543
Oracle SQL:                       532
ListSharp:                        519
Malbolge:                         516
S.I.L.O.S:                        514
Oracle SQL 11.2:                  512
Seed:                             503
D:                                502
C++:                              502
Whitespace:                       499
LOLCODE:                          490
Pascal:                           471
SNOBOL4:                          443
Taxi:                             387
Emojicode:                        379
Poetic:                           327
Pyramid Scheme:                   291
Shakespeare Programming Language: 265
Arnold C:                         238

Code:

elo.py:

STARTING = 1000
SCALE = 400
K = 10
PAD = 50

import itertools
def concat(x):
    return list(itertools.chain.from_iterable(x))

class Ratings:
    def __init__(self, challenges):
        langs = concat(challenges)
        self.ratings = {lang: STARTING for lang in langs}
        for challenge in challenges:
            self.update_challenge(challenge)

    def update_game(self, first, second, score):
        f_rat = self.ratings[first]
        s_rat = self.ratings[second]

        f_exp = 1/(1 + 10 ** ((s_rat - f_rat) / 400))
        s_exp = 1/(1 + 10 ** ((f_rat - s_rat) / 400))

        f_upd = K * (score - f_exp)
        s_upd = K * ((1 - score) - s_exp)

        self.ratings[first] += f_upd
        self.ratings[second] += s_upd

    def update_challenge(self, scores):
        for lang1 in sorted(scores):
            for lang2 in sorted(scores):
                if lang1 > lang2:
                    s1 = scores[lang1]
                    s2 = scores[lang2]
                    result = 1 if s1 < s2 else 0.5 if s1 == s2 else 0
                    self.update_game(lang1, lang2, result)
    
    def __str__(self):
        return '\n'.join(key + ':' +
                ' ' * (max(len(lang) + 1 for lang in self.ratings) - len(key)) + str(val)
                         for key, val in sorted(((lang, int(self.ratings[lang]))
                             for lang in self.ratings),
                             key=lambda x:x[::-1], reverse=True))

parse.py:

import csv
import re
import elo

CUTOFF = 10

lines = []
scores = {}
challenges = []
lang_counts = {}
canon_to_actual = {}

with open('ratings.csv') as csvfile:
    reader = csv.DictReader(csvfile)
    for row in reader:
        lines.append((row['Body'], row['ParentId']))

count = 0
for line, challenge in lines:
    line = re.sub("<s(trike)?>.*</s(trike)?>", "", line)
    line = re.sub("<a[^>]*>", "", line)
    line = re.sub("</a>", "", line)
    match = re.match("<.*>(.*)</.*>", line)
    if match:
        line = match.group(1)
        lang = re.match("([^-,\(:]*)", line)
        if lang:
            lang = lang.group(1).strip()
            canon = lang.lower().replace(' ', '')
            canon_to_actual[canon] = lang
            score = re.search("(\d+)\s*\w*\)?$", line)
            if score:
                score = int(score.group(1))
                c = scores.get(challenge, [])
                c.append((canon, score))
                scores[challenge] = c
                lang_counts[canon] = lang_counts.get(canon, 0) + 1

for c in sorted(scores, key=int):
    results = scores[c]
    c_map = {}
    for canon, score in results:
        if lang_counts[canon] > CUTOFF and re.match("\w", canon):
            lang = canon_to_actual[canon]
            old_score = c_map.get(lang, score)
            c_map[lang] = min(score, old_score)
    challenges.append(c_map)

print(elo.Ratings(challenges))

Here are the original ratings, generated with the buggy code, for posterity.

2016 Results

Jelly:                1906
Pyth:                 1711
GS:                   1674
Japt:                 1653
MATL:                 1607
Dyalog APL:           1580
J:                    1579
CJam:                 1578
Jolf:                 1559
Seriously:            1535
TeaScript:            1499
GolfScript:           1497
Pip:                  1478
Burlesque:            1460
APL:                  1443
O:                    1427
Vitsy:                1424
𝔼𝕊𝕄𝕚𝕟:                1384
Vim:                  1371
q:                    1355
K:                    1322
TI:                   1301
sh:                   1294
Octave:               1289
PARI/GP:              1272
dc:                   1269
GNU sed:              1229
Retina:               1213
x:                    1209
Bash + coreutils:     1207
Bash + GNU utilities: 1201
bc:                   1189
golflua:              1187
Sed:                  1182
HTML:                 1168
Julia:                1165
QBasic:               1156
Sage:                 1146
Ruby:                 1124
AWK:                  1101
ZSH:                  1086
Mathematica:          1083
Gema:                 1079
Bash:                 1079
jq:                   1060
Haskell:              1051
MATLAB:               1042
PowerShell v:         1028
Perl:                 1028
BBC BASIC:            1022
Piet:                 1019
Score:                1018
Shell script:         1017
Mumps:                1015
Languages:            1013
ECMAScript:           1012
Regex:                1000
LiveScript:           993
Tcl:                  989
CoffeeScript:         988
Groovy:               986
Postscript:           984
Windows PowerShell:   981
Powershell:           966
R:                    964
Befunge:              964
gawk:                 951
AutoHotkey:           934
Javascript ES:        931
Smalltalk:            928
STATA:                926
Matlab/Octave:        926
REBOL:                923
SAS:                  917
Clojure:              913
ES:                   909
PHP:                  908
Dart:                 908
Python:               894
JavaScript:           894
Node.js:              893
F#:                   880
Marbelous:            875
Excel VBA:            858
AutoIt:               853
Shell:                850
Common Lisp:          845
Brainfuck:            843
Lua:                  835
Processing:           832
Scheme:               824
CSS:                  823
Pure bash:            821
SWI:                  786
Game Maker Language:  785
FORTH:                778
SpecBAS:              776
Scala:                772
Cobra:                769
HTML + JavaScript:    758
Whitespace:           750
Applescript:          739
T:                    724
Batch:                720
Fortran:              715
Prolog:               711
Turing Machine Code:  708
C:                    706
SQL:                  704
VBA:                  703
Factor:               700
Kotlin:               690
JS:                   686
Pascal:               685
Erlang:               674
Emacs Lisp:           673
OCaml:                668
Racket:               658
VBScript:             654
VB.NET:               643
Swift:                636
D:                    621
Windows Batch:        612
Ceylon:               591
C++:                  587
Java:                 559
Oracle SQL:           548
Delphi:               539
Go:                   537
C#:                   535
Rust:                 528
\$\endgroup\$
19
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Great list, and it also represent well what's the reality. Actually, there's one more thing to do: make it case insensitive. There's for instance, one entry for Javascript ES and an other one for JavaScript ES \$\endgroup\$ – Katenkyo Apr 5 '16 at 11:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This seems to get around the problem of some languages only being used on easy challenges, since two languages are only compared on challenges they have in common. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Apr 5 '16 at 13:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ I also like that a language is scored by its shortest answer to a question, so it approximates the best a language can do rather than the average performance across a number of different users. \$\endgroup\$ – trichoplax Apr 5 '16 at 14:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Katenkyo Fixed the capitalization problems. \$\endgroup\$ – isaacg Apr 5 '16 at 14:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The Elo system might actually be better that you say, assuming you parse the answers in posted-order. Languages here evolve over time. \$\endgroup\$ – Nathan Merrill Apr 5 '16 at 18:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NathanMerrill They're sorted by question age, so you might be right. \$\endgroup\$ – isaacg Apr 5 '16 at 19:30
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I think one of the reasons jelly ranks so high is that dennis is the only one who knows how to use it. =) \$\endgroup\$ – James Apr 22 '16 at 4:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DJMcMayhem: I don't think so. I think Dennis uses Jelly because it's short (as do I), rather than Jelly being short because Dennis uses it. (You can observe that Dennis tends to do equally well, relative to other entries in the same language, when using a language other than Jelly; but the entry ends up overall longer.) \$\endgroup\$ – user62131 Apr 25 '17 at 16:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @isaacg, could you implement a matching to <a>...</a> links? The majority of new answers have hyperlinks to the language repo. \$\endgroup\$ – user92069 Apr 30 '20 at 11:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ Wish ShortC could be on the list. But almost no one uses it! (besides me and I didn't even make it). Though it's really a shortener because it just expands into C. \$\endgroup\$ – Wezl Apr 30 '20 at 15:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ Bugs: missing 05AB1E/osable, lists matlab / octave / 'matlab/octave' separate \$\endgroup\$ – Wezl Apr 30 '20 at 15:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Wezl The majority of 05AB1E answers hyperlink 05AB1E in the header, that's why it doesn't show up. \$\endgroup\$ – user92069 May 1 '20 at 3:39
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Λ̸̸ I fixed two bugs, the hyperlink bug and a bug that meant that languages with numbers in the name weren't counted. 05AB1E was hit bu both of those, now it's shot to the top. \$\endgroup\$ – isaacg May 1 '20 at 5:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ > Answers with hyperlinks in the header were not counted. - why? TIO automatically embeds a hyperlink so this measurement attempt is simply incorrect, because it doesn't take on the account a lot of submissions \$\endgroup\$ – Kamila Szewczyk Jun 8 '20 at 15:38
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @KrzysztofSzewczyk This is talking about the old version of the program, which predated TIO. The new version of the program fixes that problem. \$\endgroup\$ – isaacg Jun 8 '20 at 17:35
18
\$\begingroup\$

K-means clustering by code length

Note: This is just a first-pass attempt with a very simple method. There are certainly better ways to approach this but at least this is a start.

My approach here was to get all answers to code golf challenges without bonuses that had (at least somewhat) appropriately formatted post headers, parse out the language name and byte count from the header, perform k-means clustering on the sizes with 6 groups, and for each language select the cluster into which most of the sizes for that language fell. Languages which have been used fewer than 10 times on the site, as well as any answer with a byte count greater than 170, were excluded.

The clusters are listed in ascending order of the values of their cluster centers.

Group 1, mean 12.03099

APL            GS2             Rebmu
Arcyou         Hexagony        rs
AutoIt         J               Sed
Batch          Japt            Self
BC             Jelly           Seriously
Beeswax        Jolf            Stuck
Befunge        K               TeaScript
Brachylog      Labyrinth       TI-BASIC
Brainfuck      Marbelous       Vim
Burlesque      MATL            Vitsy
Candy          Microscript     zsh
Clip           Minkolang
DC             Mouse
DUP            O
Element        Piet
ESMin          Pip
Factor         Platypar
Fission        Prelude
Gema           Pyth
GolfScript     QBASIC

Group 2, mean 31.75217

><>
CJam
Dart
F#
GTB
JQ
Julia
KDB
Mathematica
Matlab
Milky Way
PARI/GP
Perl
Q
Rebol
Regex
Scheme
Shell
Snails

Group 3, mean 54.14769

Awk
Bash
Clojure
D
Foo
Forth
Game Maker Language
Hassium
Pascal
PowerShell
R
Retina
Ruby
Sclipting
Smalltalk
Stata

Group 4, mean 79.65123

BBC Basic        Scala
CoffeeScript     SQL
Common Lisp      Swift
CSS              TCL
Emacs Lisp       VB.NET
Fortran          VBScript
GolfLua
Groovy
Haskell
JavaScript
Lua
Mumps
PHP
Processing
Prolog
Python
Racket
Rust
Sage
SAS

Group 5, mean 109.9524

C
C++
Ceylon
Delphi
Erlang
Gawk
Java
Postscript
VBA

Group 6, mean 147.5168 

AppleScript
C#
Cobra
Go
HTML
OCaml
SpecBAS
Whitespace

Thoughts on this grouping

This is roughly what one might expect, with the golfing languages in tier 1 and Java in tier 5. This particular grouping appears to be somewhat of a success in that regard. However, 6 was probably too many groups; 4 or 5 would likely be sufficient. Heirarchical clustering may be another interesting route for analysis since no number of classes is prespecified.

Disclaimer

This should not, under any circumstances, be used to impose any kind of language handicap or restriction. It's merely for the sake of interest and giving folks a group to mentally compare their scores to, should they feel the need.

For the curious

The data were collected via this Stack Exchange Data Explorer query. The analysis was done in R and is available via this Gist.

\$\endgroup\$
12
  • 17
    \$\begingroup\$ I can spot one fatal flaw in this approach: challenges that would require significantly long code in golfing languages are usually not answered with those languages. For example, as the source of almost all of the Seriously answers, I admit that I usually don't try to answer a challenge with Seriously unless it's under 40 or so bytes (because any longer becomes unmanageable thanks to my poor design decisions). This skews Seriously towards a higher tier than what it probably should be. \$\endgroup\$ – user45941 Mar 27 '16 at 7:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Mego Yep. There's a whole lot I didn't take into account. This is just a means of getting the ball rolling on an approach in the simplest possible way. \$\endgroup\$ – Alex A. Mar 27 '16 at 7:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ 404 on the gist. When you say "perform k-means clustering on the sizes with 6 groups", what exactly was the input to the clustering algorithm? \$\endgroup\$ – Peter Taylor Mar 27 '16 at 17:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PeterTaylor Looks like I accidentally deleted the gist. I've readded it and updated the URL. The input was the code lengths as parsed from the headers. Those were grouped into 6 classes using k-means and merged back to their respective languages. Then, for each language, I selected the class into which it fell most often. \$\endgroup\$ – Alex A. Mar 27 '16 at 18:08
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ As an avid vim user and a vim golfer, I'm really happy to see it in the same tier as the golfing languages. =D \$\endgroup\$ – James Mar 28 '16 at 1:34
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ I was quite surprised to see QBASIC in the top tier, until I looked at the QBASIC answers on the site. It's pretty good backup for Mego's comment. I suppose there's probably a somewhat better way to do this, but I'm not really sure it won't be filled with these outliers as well. \$\endgroup\$ – Geobits Mar 28 '16 at 2:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps sampling from a set of challenges with many answers in many different languages would be better, rather than across the entire site, to avoid the problem I brought up. Granted, I still don't think this will result in anything useful. \$\endgroup\$ – user45941 Mar 28 '16 at 7:04
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think that @Mego's comment deserves some thought. Perhaps we should score based on relation to the median answer of each question? \$\endgroup\$ – Not that Charles Mar 28 '16 at 14:31
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ What poor souls answered in Delphi? \$\endgroup\$ – Morgan Thrapp Mar 28 '16 at 18:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think BATCH is in the first group because not many people answer in BATCH, and, when they do, it's usually on an easy question. \$\endgroup\$ – Conor O'Brien Apr 3 '16 at 22:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ more reasons why this is biased -- cool, but biased \$\endgroup\$ – cat Apr 5 '16 at 1:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Mego this is probably how Brainfuck ended up in group 1 \$\endgroup\$ – Felix Dombek Oct 6 '17 at 2:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .