[HN Gopher] GitHut - Programming Languages and GitHub (2014)
___________________________________________________________________
GitHut - Programming Languages and GitHub (2014)
Author : tonyhb
Score : 29 points
Date : 2025-11-20 21:33 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (githut.info)
(TXT) w3m dump (githut.info)
| miguel_martin wrote:
| Why are Nim, Odin, Zig, Mojo not included (and probably many
| others)?
| some_guy_nobel wrote:
| Probably because this was made in 2014 :D
| jtwaleson wrote:
| Would love to see an update to 2025
| tonyhb wrote:
| I really, really want this updated too and saw it in my
| bookmarks. Figured the historic data was interesting, and that
| someone might want to give this another go.
| akerl_ wrote:
| The connectors are interesting, but I wish there was a way to
| sort by a column and have the rows be actually linear.
|
| Also, worth noting that it looks like this data only covers
| 2012-2014?
| kodablah wrote:
| I think correlating "pushes per repository" to certain languages
| is interesting. The top "pushes per repository" are C++, TeX,
| Rust, C, and CSS. I guess it's no surprise many would also
| consider those the most guess-and-check or hard-to-get-right-
| upfront-without-tooling languages too.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Really? I don't think Rust is like that because it has such
| strong compile time checking. More likely because Rust 1.0
| hadn't even been released in 2014 so by definition every Rust
| project was extremely new and active.
| kodablah wrote:
| Yes, maybe the causation assumption here is inaccurate.
| Etheryte wrote:
| It's unclear if that's the takeaway here. Pushes per repository
| can just as well indicate a project that's just old, or active,
| or popular, or etc.
| ivanjermakov wrote:
| Would be fun to weight each language by average number of stars,
| but normalize by repository count.
|
| Data analysys without adjusting groups by popularity is a bit
| lame.
| ethmarks wrote:
| Absolutely stunning and ingenious visualization, but
| disappointing data. In 2014 there were 2.2 million repos, while
| in 2025 there are closer to 500 million. The repo was last
| updated seven years ago, so I assume that this project has been
| abandoned.
|
| A cursory glance at the source code[1] reveals that it's using
| GitHub Archive data. Looking through the gharchive data[2], it
| seems like it was last updated in 2024. So there's 10 years of
| publicly accessible new data.
|
| Is there any reason we (by "we" I mean "random members of the
| community" as opposed to the developer of the project) can't re-
| build GitHut with the new data, seeing as it's open source? It's
| only processing the repo metadata, meaning it shouldn't even be
| that much data and should be well under the free 1TB limit in
| BigQuery (The processed data from 2014 stored in the repo[3] is
| only 71MB in size, though I assume the 2024 data will be larger),
| so cost shouldn't be a concern.
|
| I'm not experienced enough to know whether creating an updated
| version of this would take an afternoon or several weeks.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/littleark/githut/
|
| [2]:
| https://console.cloud.google.com/bigquery?project=githubarch...
|
| [3]:
| https://github.com/littleark/githut/blob/master/server/data/...
| nightpool wrote:
| Apparently someone worked on it, but (IMO) the visualization is
| a lot less nice compared to the original:
| https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pull_requests/2024/1
| steveklabnik wrote:
| As noted, should be (2014).
|
| There is also GitHut 2.0:
| https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pull_requests/2024/1
|
| This updates through 2024.
| nightpool wrote:
| Interesting to see the number of JS pushes go down
| significantly, but actually realize that it's just because many
| more projects are using TypeScript:
|
| https://i.imgur.com/AJBE9so.png
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-20 23:00 UTC)