Re^5: [OT]: threading recursive subroutines.

BrowserUk,
Conversely, I've never seen you offer any Perl code as a solution. Nary a once. Maybe I just missed it?

I couldn't possibly imagine this to be true so I set out to prove you wrong. While you are in fact wrong, I was quite suprised by the results.

sundialsvc4 has been a monk since 2007-10-29 (3.25 years) and has posted 1148 nodes in that time. Of those, 1073 (93.5%) are replies. Of those, 141 (13.1%) have code tags. In other words, about 1 in 8 response have code. Here is the interesting thing - what I found surprising. Of the 141 with code tags, 89 (63.1%) were made in a one month window (2009-02-26 to 2009-03-25). In fact, of the 444 replies made in 2010, only 18 (4%) had code tags. Rather than being 1 in 8 responses it dropped to 1 in 25. Of the 94 replies so far in 2011 - none have code tags.

I want to be clear, I didn't gather this information to attack sundialsvc4. I honestly thought you were letting your feelings blind you to honest contributions. Disclaimers: The presence of a code tag doesn't mean the presence of actual code. While I excluded root nodes (non-replies), there isn't an easy way to exclude replies to yourself. I certainly didn't review all 1073 responses to subjectively quantify value and one should not draw the conclusion that because no code was provided that the response wasn't useful.

Cheers - L~R

Comment on Re^5: [OT]: threading recursive subroutines.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: [OT]: threading recursive subroutines. by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Feb 10, 2011 at 20:34 UTC
Of the 141 with code tags, 89 (63.1%) were made in a one month window (2009-02-26 to 2009-03-25). I'm not sure how to respond to this, nor even quite what to make of your intent. What I can say is that I've just waded through all 620 nodes posted in 2009, and of the 141 with code tags, exactly 12 contain actual code. All those are in his own root nodes (ie. his own code asking questions, or in those threads). All bar one are just snippets. Just one, was actual, runnable code. All the other 129 instances of code tags are used as poor substitutes for `[mod://]` tags; or `[keyword]` tags or `[perldoc://]` tags; Or as an inappropriate quoting mechanism: `:-)`, `COBOL`, `TIMTOWTDI`, `THItheBoxNK`, `ooommmmmmm!`, `Have you heard of m-o-n-s-t-e-r-.-c-o-m` and similar. I also scanned on into the first half of 2010 and it is a similar story. Not a single instance of him proffering a working solution to an OP. Maybe my memory is not so bad after all. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: [OT]: threading recursive subroutines.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Feb 10, 2011 at 20:34 UTC

Of the 141 with code tags, 89 (63.1%) were made in a one month window (2009-02-26 to 2009-03-25).

I'm not sure how to respond to this, nor even quite what to make of your intent.

What I can say is that I've just waded through all 620 nodes posted in 2009, and of the 141 with code tags, exactly 12 contain actual code. All those are in his own root nodes (ie. his own code asking questions, or in those threads). All bar one are just snippets. Just one, was actual, runnable code.

All the other 129 instances of code tags are used as poor substitutes for [mod://] tags; or [keyword] tags or [perldoc://] tags;

Or as an inappropriate quoting mechanism: :-), COBOL, TIMTOWTDI, THItheBoxNK, ooommmmmmm!, Have you heard of m-o-n-s-t-e-r-.-c-o-m and similar.

I also scanned on into the first half of 2010 and it is a similar story. Not a single instance of him proffering a working solution to an OP.

Maybe my memory is not so bad after all.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]