Yes, it does.

Your data is showing that Scala grew from 0.01% to 0.03% over the past two years. Sounds impressive, right?

It's a relative number. Whenever somebody quotes growth numbers instead of absolute numbers, they are trying to hide something.

Let's take a look at the absolute numbers:

http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=scala%2C+java&l=

As you can see, Scala's line is a flatline around 0 compared to Java.

> Whenever somebody quotes growth numbers instead of absolute numbers, they are trying to hide something.

No, it is the data you asked us to look at and it refutes your claim that "they are as insignificant today as they were five years ago". They are _less_ insignificant. They may still be several orders of magnitude lower, but your claim is still incorrect.

If you are saying that 0.01% is insignificant but 0.03% is not, then you might have gone off a little bit too far on the fan boy scale.

Just take absolute numbers: According to indeed, there are over 1000 open jobs mentioning Scala in the US, and over 750 in the UK. Taken together, the number of open Scala jobs in both countries exceeds the number of open Groovy jobs. It's still small compared to Java jobs (to be precise 1.5% in the US, close to 3% in the UK), but Java is by far the most demanded language, so this is not surprising. To say there is no pick-up in adoption of functional languages is disingenuous, IMO.

And most of those job ads mentioning "Groovy" are for using groovy as an add-on to Java, while those mentioning "Scala" are usually for using Scala as the primary language.

And, I should add, given this level of demand it's a good thing we just finished the Scala massive open online class with more than 10'000 developers completing the course with success.

A programmer who can't admit that his claim, expressed as an inequality, evaluates to false?