Earning fat stacks

Java devs among best-paid in industry

Elliot Bentley
dollars2

Users of JVM languages are rolling in it (though not as much as ActionScript devs) according to data from GitHub.

Ever wondered if the
grass might be greener – financially speaking, at least – if you
worked with a different language? According to stats compiled by
Ben Podgursky, a software engineer at advertising data company
LiveRamp, you’re best off
sticking with Java.

Podgursky has previously used Rapleaf data to visualise the demographics of
various GitHub organisations
, with Netflix coming out on top as
the highest-paying and Cloud Foundry apparently the “most
female”.

This time round, he’s made use of this data to calculate the

average household income for developers of each language
– and
found that Java ranks as the third best-paying mainstream language,
above the likes of Ruby, C and Perl.

For each repository composed at least 50% of a certain language,
Podgursky aggregated the income of the developers involved and then
calculated the overall average.

The results mostly match up with established preconceptions of
different languages. Java, being heavily used in the enterprise,
pays very well with an average salary of $103,179. Groovy and Scala
developers are near the top, earning on average $102,650 and
$101,460 respectively.

Bizarrely, the best-paid positions appear to be for those coding
in ActionScript, the JavaScript-like language used by Flash Player
and Adobe AIR. ActionScript developers on average $108,120, over
$10,000 more than JavaScript developers; although this is only
based on a sample size of 113.

Towards the bottom of the list are PHP and CoffeeScript devs,
bringing in less than $95,000 each – even lower than CSS ($99,881)
and JavaScript ($97,598),

However, all are far above the median household income in the US
($51,144 according to a 2011
census
). Regardless of your preferred language, it seems that
coding continues to be pretty lucrative – at least, if your company
open-sources its products.

Photo by 401(k).

Author
Comments
comments powered by Disqus