# Julia Popularity Graph

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-popularity-graph/135966>\
**Category:** Community\
**Created:** [March 2, 2026, 5:16pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-popularity-graph/135966 "2026-03-02T17:16:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_Sagan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/david_sagan/32/33792_2.png) [@David\_Sagan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/David_Sagan)\
**Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 3:32am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-popularity-graph/135966/6 "2026-03-03T03:32:49Z")

</div>

I agree that there are systematics in the data that are not believable. The bigger question for me is if the long term trends in the data (say over a decade or so) are indicative of what is actually happening in the real world. If you factor in the [data](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/some-julia-growth-usage-stats/112547/4) from @StefanKarpinski, along with the data from [PYPL](https://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html) (which also has systematics that are not believable), consistent long-term growth is noticeable. I would not want to make any quantitative statements but I do think this puts the lie to what some doom sayers (no names mentioned) are saying.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-popularity-graph/135966)._