We should resize the balls based not on the languages they directly influenced, but on the transitive closure on the relation. I was rather shocked to see ISWI

We should resize the balls based not on the languages they directly influenced, but on the transitive closure on the relation. I was rather shocked to see ISWIM having such a small node, given it influenced basically the whole statically typed functional branch. Miranda got a correspondingly undeserved treatment. Ideally, for the influence network, the size of the ball should correspond only to the influences that where innovations in the considered language. That may be too much to compute, though.