I mean, that's an interesting point, but you have defined winning only on a macroscopic scale. On an individual level, winning takes on much more subjective cri

I mean, that's an interesting point, but you have defined winning only on a macroscopic scale. On an individual level, winning takes on much more subjective criteria, and I think that's what people typically need information about when making language decisions. Quantity of users is interesting, but I'm certainly not writing an OS in Python because it ranks higher than C on TIOBE, and I'm not going to discount smaller languages that I can use effectively on the sole merit that other languages are more popular. Languages are tools that solve a problem, and it is possible for them to both be used by relatively few people and still successfully solve a problem. For example, though Elixir is not as popular as Go, Elixir might win for me because I think it has a better concurrency model. Elixir is not globally used more than Go, but nonetheless it is my winner, and the people who pour their time into the product have still done an admirable job.