News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Cryptographic Doom Principle. Parent comment

Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by eru on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @01:05PM (#9375692)
Where did the 83% number come from?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by tekromancr on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @01:20PM (#9375786)
Rectal-Numerical Generation...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by sarciszewski on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @01:39PM (#9375939)
Um, no. http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/programming_languag...

Currently 82%, last time I checked it was 83%.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by tekromancr on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @01:52PM (#9376039)
Looks legit. My apologies. I was unsure of how they would even go about determining that, but after reading their methodology and limitations, it seems that is a somewhat representative number.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by eru on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @03:57PM (#9376863)
It looks like they count by domains. Around 80% sounds right for PHP by that measure.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by kyberias on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @04:52PM (#9377260)
It slightly decreases the validity of the page when it states that ASP.NET is a programming language.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by eru on Wednesday April 15, 2015 @09:23AM (#9380771)
They even claim that PHP is a language..

Seriously, just assume they mean technology stack or something.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by classicsnoot on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @02:03PM (#9376127)
Your comment has value on re-use capability alone. Thank you for the lel.
[ Parent | on HN ]