GitHut – Programming Languages and GitHub (2014)

GitHut – Programming Languages and GitHub (2014)(githut.info)

88 points by tonyhb 178 days ago | 33 comments

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 178 days ago | |

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

threatofrain 178 days ago | | |

The library space converged to TS far faster than the rest of the JS world. Also interesting to see the sharp rise of Go.

oceansky 178 days ago | | |

If you sum both, it's 17.204%, which would place it at the top.

fuzzythinker 178 days ago | | |

No usability consideration at all. Yellow on grey (top curve's) is unreadable.

chromehearts 178 days ago | |

Wish it would look exactly like the first version

dgan 178 days ago | | |

Definitely a worse design, curious what was the reasonning

kodablah 178 days ago |

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.

Etheryte 178 days ago | |

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.

IshKebab 178 days ago | |

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 178 days ago | | |

Yes, maybe the causation assumption here is inaccurate.

akerl_ 178 days ago |

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?

jtwaleson 178 days ago |

Would love to see an update to 2025

etyhhgfff 177 days ago | |

Here you go: https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pull_requests/2024/1

johnisgood 176 days ago | | |

Nix is 11st, and Rust is 13rd, and C is 9th. Interesting!

tonyhb 178 days ago | |

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.

kleiba 178 days ago | |

+1. This has historical value but 11 years are eons in IT.

summarity 178 days ago |

We also publish related data every year: https://github.blog/news-insights/octoverse/octoverse-a-new-...

stanac 178 days ago | |

> 80% of new developers on GitHub use Copilot in their first week

I am not sure how honest this statement is. I remember typing something in an input which I thought was search, but no, it was AI search or something like that. Free copilot got activated on my account simply by submitting a search query. Statement may be technically true but it's target audience are investors and maybe higher management (someone is getting a raise or a bonus), not actual developers.

into_ruin 178 days ago |

This may be a stupid question, but if most iOS apps are written in Swift, why isn't Swift more popular? Is it just because most Swift projects aren't FOSS?

philipwhiuk 178 days ago | |

Swift was only just released in September 2014

ivanjermakov 178 days ago |

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.

clircle 178 days ago | |

What statistic are you proposing? Number of repos / avg stars ?

ivanjermakov 177 days ago | | |

Just average stars by language would be fun.

jonny_eh 178 days ago |

Wow, 1995 was a stacked year for languages: JavaScript, Java, Ruby, PHP

miguel_martin 178 days ago |

Why are Nim, Odin, Zig, Mojo not included (and probably many others)?

stu2421 176 days ago | |

Nim is on the list for Stars in 2024 quarter 1.

GitHut 2.0: https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pull_requests/2024/1

some_guy_nobel 178 days ago | |

Probably because this was made in 2014 :D

ethmarks 178 days ago |

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 178 days ago | |

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

flymasterv 178 days ago | |

GHArchive is updated constantly, but the tables reflect COMPLETED time periods. So there’s no yearly/2025, yet. You have to look at the monthlies.

Source: just left GOOG after 5 years on the GitHub tooling team.

irfn 178 days ago |

1995 was a busy year in new programming languages!