<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>http://www.simia.net/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Java_developers_f%2A%2A%2A_the_least</id>
	<title>Java developers f*** the least - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.simia.net/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Java_developers_f%2A%2A%2A_the_least"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.simia.net/index.php?title=Java_developers_f***_the_least&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-04-23T04:44:03Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.32.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.simia.net/index.php?title=Java_developers_f***_the_least&amp;diff=1011&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>imported&gt;Denny: New page: {{pubdate|19|October|2006}} Andrew Newman conducted a brilliant and significant [http://morenews.blogspot.com/2006/10/wtf.html study on how often programmers use f***], and he splitted it ...</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.simia.net/index.php?title=Java_developers_f***_the_least&amp;diff=1011&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2007-12-28T01:03:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;New page: {{pubdate|19|October|2006}} Andrew Newman conducted a brilliant and significant [http://morenews.blogspot.com/2006/10/wtf.html study on how often programmers use f***], and he splitted it ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;{{pubdate|19|October|2006}}&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew Newman conducted a brilliant and significant [http://morenews.blogspot.com/2006/10/wtf.html study on how often programmers use f***], and he splitted it on programming languages. Java developers f*** the least, whereas LISP programmers use it on every fourth opportunity. In absolute term, there are still more Java f***s, but less than C++ f***s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to add a further number to the study -- because Andrew unexplicably omitted Python -- here's the data: about 196,000 files / 200 occurences -&amp;gt; 980. That's the second highest result, placing it between Java and Perl (note that the higher the number, the less f***s -- I would have normalized that by taking it 1/n, but, fuck, there's always something to complain).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that Google Code Search actually is totally inconsisten with regards to their results. A search for [http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=fuck f***] alone returns 600 results, but if you look for [http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=fuck+lang%3A%22c%2B%2B%22 f*** in C++] it returns 2000. So, take the numbers with more than a grain of salt. The bad thing is that Google counts are taken as a basis for a growing number of algorithms in NLP and machine learning (I co-authored a [http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/Publikationen/showPublikation?publ_id=975 paper that does that too]). Did anyone compare the results with Yahoo counts or MSN counts or Ask counts or whatever? This is not the best scientific practice, I am afraid. And I comitted it too. Darn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;{{Semantic Nodix post}}&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Missing comments}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>imported&gt;Denny</name></author>
		
	</entry>
</feed>