What Can We Learn From the Results of C++ Community Surveys?
summary
Compares JetBrains Developer Ecosystem, C++ Foundation and Meeting C++ raw numbers and survey methods, showing how CMake/GCC/GDB became the initial tool targets and how cleaning rules (remove too-fast responses, dedupe by IP/email) cut noisy replies. Reports 35,000 total Developer Ecosystem responses in 2023, about 2,600 C++ answers after cleaning, and Foundation ~1,200 respondents; C++ primary share ~8–9%. Highlights concrete divergences like 54% vs 80% CMake project-model answers, Ninja as a build-tool mismatch, Conan/vcpkg differences, AI adoption (~50% departments, ~33% users, ~20% security concerns).
AI-written summary · about
chapters (19)
- 0:00Introduction and context
- 2:04Why data matters
- 5:13Utilizing survey tools
- 7:21Dashboards and transparency
- 9:59AI tool adoption research
- 11:23Diving deeper into trends
- 13:47Defining the developer base
- 18:26Global market analysis
- 20:51Polyglot programming trends
- 21:39Survey methodologies
- 26:26Conference participation data
- 27:36Addressing survey biases
- 35:43The art of asking questions
- 39:13Learning from past mistakes
- 42:18Standard migration patterns
- 44:47Comparing survey differences
- 48:18Tools and project models
- 50:56Feature and tool adoption
- 56:08Validation and conclusion
related talks
40mData Doesn't Lie: How to Influence Open Source Programming Through..
30mCommunity Metrics What to Measure and Why?
20mThe next million R users
47mExploring StackOverflow Data
25mUX, DX, DSX: Developers and Data Scientists as Users
48mHuman data interactions: experiments in how humans analyze data
20mEmbracing R in the Geospatial Community
14mInformal Learning Communities: The Other Massive Open Online 'C'