Re: Which modules are most often mentioned on PerlMonks???
by footpad (Abbot) on Jan 26, 2001 at 03:28 UTC
|
Nice...
It would be also be nice if:
There was some text describing: when the script was last run and the date range used.
To update this periodically, say once a month or so this rerun periodically.
To see it broken down by:
- 1. Unique monk references (this would take care of AgentM's influence over Bone::Easy).
- 2. Mentions by Monk Level, e.g. 13 Saints recommend using CGI.pm.
To include links to the relevant location on cpan.org.
(I realize that some of these may be more appropriate for jcwren to handle.)
Still, very cool...
--f | [reply] |
|
Though I guess it would/could be nice to convert that page into a link page, so you go there first when looking up something about a module then follow a link and that should lead to a page like:
- download from cpan
- read the perlman
- this module was mentioned in SOPW
- this module has also some Q&A entries
It's just a page full of links to other locations, but so you'll find everything available about that module in one p(a)lace. And it would be nice to let one search this group of documents for some terms. Just my 2 cents. :-)
Have a nice day
All decision is left to your taste
| [reply] |
(Ovid) Re: Which modules are most often mentioned on PerlMonks???
by Ovid (Cardinal) on Jan 26, 2001 at 02:48 UTC
|
This is too cool :) I'm glad to see that my favorite module came in first :)
I am curious about one thing, though. There are plenty of modules that have been mentioned only twice, but none that are mentioned once. I don't want to suggest that you have a bug in your code, so I humbly ask, what were the criteria for inclusion on the list?
Cheers,
Ovid
Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats. | [reply] |
|
| [reply] [d/l] |
|
Interestingly, the most popular modules/pragmas are all missed!
use DBI;
use warnings;
use strict;
Or what about a mention such as "use CGI;" which also would not be counted. Is the intention to exclude all mentions in code? Or would it be practical to add a new RegEx like:
/^use \w+;/
-Lexicon
| [reply] |
|
| [reply] |
Re: Which modules are most often mentioned on PerlMonks???
by $code or die (Deacon) on Jan 26, 2001 at 07:11 UTC
|
I love some of the pseudo-modules that made it onto the list, eg:
Foo::Bar
Peter::Gabriel
Calvin::Hobbes
and my favorite:
Some::Package::That::Doesnt::Exist
Tho' I'm sure Win32::Daemon is a misprint =)
$code or die
Using perl at
The Spiders Web | [reply] |
(redmist) Re: Which modules are most often mentioned on PerlMonks???
by redmist (Deacon) on Jan 26, 2001 at 03:01 UTC
|
Oops. Looks like AgentM is responible for the 250 mentionings of Bone::Easy, and I am responsible for the 72 mentions of email::redmist. I have been bad.
redmist
Silicon Cowboy
redmist::webnode | [reply] |
Re (tilly): Which modules are most often mentioned on PerlMonks???
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jan 26, 2001 at 04:14 UTC
|
I am amazed to find that my favorite module has
only been mentioned 7 times. Erm, I know I have mentioned
it more than that...
(I know, without looking for it in particular it is hard
to tell that people who are talking about it are talking
about a module. But I thought I would throw that out there.) | [reply] |
|
Well, it turns out that vroom used a regex with .pm, so strict wouldn't have popped up much. Otherwise, it would have nuked the rest in priority.
AgentM Systems nor Nasca Enterprises nor
Bone::Easy nor Macperl is responsible for the
comments made by
AgentM. Remember, you can build any logical system with NOR.
| [reply] |
Re: Which modules are most often mentioned on PerlMonks???
by Albannach (Monsignor) on Jan 26, 2001 at 03:07 UTC
|
| [reply] |
Re: Which modules are most often mentioned on PerlMonks???
by turnstep (Parson) on Jan 26, 2001 at 03:08 UTC
|
Very interesting list. Perhaps you could back the criteria
down to "at least one mention" - it seems the current
threshold is at 2, including some very non-standard
modules. I'm sure the "only 1" list would be equally,
if not more, amusing. ++ for the new page!
| [reply] |