javascript 圖表

by Sacha Greif

由Sacha Greif

JavaScript 2018年的三個有爭議的圖表 (Three Controversial Charts From the State of JavaScript 2018)

您認為統計數據和圖表很無聊嗎？再想一想… (You thought stats and graphs were boring? Think again…)

“Controversial” is literally the most overused word on the Internet, with the possible exception of “literally”. But this time it’s true: some of the charts in our 2018 State of JavaScript survey results generated a lot more debate than others. Let’s see why!

從字面上看，“有爭議的”是互聯網上使用最多的單詞，可能有“文字上的”例外。但這一次是真的： 2018年JavaScript狀態調查結果中的某些圖表比其他圖表引起了更多爭議。讓我們看看為什么！

性別差距是真實的 (The Gender Gap is Real)

I’m sure you’ve heard that there’s a gender gap in tech. If you had asked me last month, I’d probably have said something like 80/20% male/female. What about you, what would your estimate be?

我相信您已經聽說科技領域存在性別差距。如果您上個月問過我，我大概會說80/20％的男性/女性。那你呢，你的估計是多少？

Scroll down to see the answer!

向下滾動以查看答案！

…

Scroll down…

向下滾動…

…

Keep scrolling…

繼續向下滑…

…

A little bit more…

多一點…

…

Imagine my surprise when our data revealed this sea of red dots and a 95/5% breakdown instead!

想象一下，當我們的數據顯示出紅點之海和95/5％的故障時，我感到驚訝！

My first instinct was that something must be wrong with our methodology. After all a lot of people hear about the survey through places like Hacker News or Reddit, which themselves could have skewed demographics.

我的第一個直覺是我們的方法一定有問題。畢竟，很多人都是通過Hacker News或Reddit之類的網站來了解這項調查的，他們本來可能會歪曲人口統計信息。

But the Stack Overflow developer survey confirmed that our numbers weren’t that far off:

但是Stack Overflow開發人員調查證實，我們的數字相差不遠：

(Note: it was actually not that easy to find other developer surveys to see if ours and Stack Overflow were outliers or not. If you find any please let me know!)

(注意：查找其他開發人員調查以查看我們的調查和Stack Overflow是否離群值實際上并不容易。如果有發現，請告訴我！)

As you can imagine, this chart generated a lot of disappointed tweets:

您可以想象，此圖表產生了許多令人失望的推文：

So what can be done? Our first instinct was to find ways to reach out to more women and minorities, and that’s certainly a good first step. But while making the survey itself more inclusive is necessary (and we have some ideas around that, starting with translating it to other languages), it’s also important to remember that a survey only reflects reality.

那該怎么辦呢？我們的第一個直覺是找到接觸更多婦女和少數族裔的方法，這無疑是一個很好的第一步。但是，盡管使調查本身更具包容性是必要的(并且我們對此有一些想法，首先是將其翻譯成其他語言 )，但切記調查僅反映了現實也很重要。

We don’t want to end up focusing on making the numbers look good, and then calling it a day. So the ultimate goal should still be to make the industry as a whole as welcoming as it can be, so that future surveys naturally reflect that new state of things.

我們不想最后集中精力使數字看起來不錯，然后再稱之為一天。因此，最終目標仍然應該是使整個行業盡可能地受歡迎，以便將來的調查自然反映出這種新情況。

角vs角 (Angular vs Angular)

Ever since Angular’s big split into Angular (new hotness) and AngularJS (old version), talking about the framework has been tricky.

自從Angular分為Angular (新功能)和AngularJS (舊版本)以來，談論框架一直很棘手。

And this year, I have to admit we didn’t do an especially good job of handling the matter.

今年，我不得不承認，我們在處理此事方面做得并不出色。

First, here’s how the Angular question has been addressed over all 3 years of the survey:

首先，這是在過去三年的調查中如何解決“角度”問題的方法：

2016: asked about both Angular and AngularJS, in two separate questions
2016年：在兩個單獨的問題中問及Angular和AngularJS
2017: asked about both Angular and AngularJS, in two separate questions
2017年：在兩個單獨的問題中問及Angular和AngularJS
2018: only asked about Angular
2018年：只問過Angular

Here’s the resulting chart:

這是結果圖：

That chart shows Angular for all three years. The 2016 and 2017 data for AngularJS simply doesn’t factor into the chart.

該圖顯示了過去三年的Angular 。 AngularJS的2016年和2017年數據根本沒有計入圖表中。

We thought this was the logical thing to do: AngularJS is an old and deprecated technology, so we simply dropped it from the survey and moved on.

我們認為這是合乎邏輯的事情：AngularJS是一項過時且過時的技術，因此我們只是將其從調查中刪除并繼續使用。

The issue of course, as you can maybe guess from the chart, is that many respondents didn’t see things that way. Some of them thought our question about Angular was also about AngularJS, which explains the sudden rise in “would not use again” answers in 2018.

當然，您可能從圖表中可以猜到，問題是許多受訪者并不這么認為。他們中的一些人認為我們關于Angular的問題也是關于AngularJS的問題，這解釋了2018年“將不再使用”答案的突然增加。

This did not go over well:

這進展不順利：

In our defense, we simply treated Angular like any other framework mentioned in the survey, using its official name (“Angular”). Maybe we should have taken the initiative to substitute something like “Angular 2+” instead, even though that’s not the official nomenclature; or at least added a special clarifying note to explain the situation.

在我們的辯護中，我們只是將Angular像調查中提到的任何其他框架一樣使用了官方名稱(“ Angular”)。也許我們應該主動代替“ Angular 2+”之類的東西，即使這不是官方名稱。或至少添加了一個特殊的說明以解釋這種情況。

In any case, I’ll agree that we did do a poor job of explaining the whole issue, and for that we apologize.

無論如何，我都同意我們在解釋整個問題上做得很差，對此我們深表歉意。

采樣偏差 (Sampling Bias)

We also heard accusations of sampling bias, usually coming from either people in statistics, or people who’ve read into it a bit on Wikipedia.

我們還聽到了關于抽樣偏差的指控，通常來自統計人員或在Wikipedia上有所了解的人員。

Here’s something interesting to note: all three members of the State of JS team are React users, not Angular users. It seems like that’d make us more likely to have access to a React-using audience, right?

需要注意的是：JS State團隊的所有三個成員都是React用戶，而不是Angular用戶。看來這會使我們更有可能接觸使用React的受眾，對嗎？

While this is certainly a possibility, most respondents found the survey through “neutral” sources like Reddit or Hacker News. Also, apart from the Angular issue already discussed, our data seems to match that of other surveys:

盡管這確實是有可能的，但大多數受訪者都是通過Reddit或Hacker News之類的“中立”資源找到該調查的。此外，除了已經討論的Angular問題之外，我們的數據似乎與其他調查的數據相符：

Unless… does the NPM team use React too? Oh the conspiracy…!

除非……NPM團隊也使用React嗎？陰謀哦！

But seriously, as you might imagine, we’re already doing everything we can to spread the survey to a broader audience. And we can only hope that as the survey audience grows year after year, whatever sampling bias we might introduce will naturally evaporate.

但認真的，正如您可能想像的那樣，我們已經在盡一切可能將調查傳播給更多的受眾。我們只能希望，隨著調查對象的年復一年地增長，我們可能引入的任何抽樣偏差都會自然消失。

您是否應該真正避免使用Ember.js？ (Should You Really Avoid Ember.js?)

Our final controversy concerns our recommendation to “avoid” certain technologies.

我們的最終爭議是關于“避免”某些技術的建議。

Well, it does say “AVOID” in all caps right there on the chart, I can’t deny that.

好吧，它確實在圖表上的所有大寫中都表示“避免”，我不能否認。

As a user of Ember, Polymer, or any other technology that has the misfortune of ending up in that “avoid” quadrant, this could understandably make you mad. Just because some fraction of developers may have had a bad experience with a library a few years back doesn’t mean everybody should avoid it!

作為Ember，Polymer或其他不幸陷入“避開”象限的技術的用戶，這可以使您發瘋。僅僅因為某些開發人員幾年前可能對圖書館有不好的經驗，并不意味著每個人都應該避免使用它！

I can certainly understand that sentiment, since I’m in the same boat as you. I’m a heavy Meteor user myself: I wrote a book about it, I’m even building an entire open-source framework on it, yet I had to accept that Meteor too falls in the “avoid” quadrant:

我當然可以理解這種情緒，因為我和你在同一條船上。我本人是Meteor的沉重用戶：我寫了一本關于它的書，甚至在它上面建立了一個完整的開源框架，但我不得不接受Meteor也屬于“避免”象限：

I think Meteor is great, but this is not just about what I think, or what you think. It’s about what 20,000 developers think.

我認為流星很棒，但這不僅僅關乎我的想法或您的想法。這是關于20,000名開發人員的想法。

And yes, going from “most developers wouldn’t use X again” to “you should avoid X” does take a leap. We could just give you the data and leave you to form your own conclusions.

是的，從“大多數開發人員不會再使用X”到“您應該避免使用X”確實是一個飛躍。我們可以給您數據，讓您自己得出結論。

But this goes back to the whole reason we’re running the survey in the first place: helping you make decisions. If you already know and love Ember, Meteor, or any other technology, then more power to you! We have no intention of criticizing your choice.

但這可以歸結為我們首先進行調查的全部原因：幫助您制定決策。如果您已經了解并喜歡Ember，Meteor或任何其他技術，那么為您帶來更多動力！我們無意批評您的選擇。

If, on the other hand, you come to use for insight and guidance, then we think the best way to do that is to be clear, and maybe even a little blunt. Saying things like “every library has its pros and cons, and you should pick the best one for your needs” may not offend anybody, but it also doesn’t really help anybody.

另一方面，如果您開始使用以獲得見識和指導，那么我們認為做到這一點的最佳方法就是弄清楚，甚至可能會變得有些直率。說諸如“每個圖書館都有其優缺點，您應該選擇最適合自己的圖書館”之類的東西可能不會冒犯任何人，但它實際上并沒有對任何人有所幫助。

JavaScript(某些)的狀態 (The State of (Some Of) JavaScript)

At the end of the day it’s important to remember that a survey can only go so far. We do our best to be representative of the entire JavaScript ecosystem, but 20,000 developers is still only a tiny portion of the community.

歸根結底，重要的是要記住，一項調查只能走這么遠。我們盡力代表整個JavaScript生態系統，但是20,000個開發人員仍然只是社區的一小部分。

We don’t think this means it’s not worth trying, though. And with your help, we believe we can keep improving things year after year.

但是，我們認為這并不值得嘗試。在您的幫助下，我們相信我們可以年復一年地不斷改進。

So keep your feedback coming, whether good or bad. And of course, see you in 2019!

因此，無論您的反饋是好是壞，請隨時提出反饋。當然，2019年見！