The application was done when I posted the question. I am always interested in other approaches b/c I love to learn. And I'm more than willing to change an approach if I get back a good reason.

Since you seem interested in the "benchmark" of my post: algorithm: 40 seconds; super search: 2 minutes; post: 1 minute; follow up... well, I admit, I could have blown this one off safely and saved myself some time; I type 88wpm though, so not too bad after all.

Reading through the PODs of the 1,416 results returned by a typcial CPAN search (and this one in particular) instead of just asking the good monks here... why? Are you against increased content on the site?

Nope, just pointing out that when you say "resorting to using a module" you sound like you have something against taking advantage of tested and proven work to advance your own, and would prefer to reinvent the wheel when faced with a choice.

Sorry if you took offense, as it seems you have. None was intended. Good analysis though, I love it when someone takes the time to show me with some solid statistics just how flippant I'm being. ;)

Jason W.

Perhaps it's mother's day making me prickly.

Sometimes when I look at the list of use ABC .. XYZ at the top of a script trying to creep below the fold of my poor teraterm I cringe.

I ♥ the CPAN. (I hope that entity displays right for everyone)

Your "benchmark" is missing the time it takes everyone else to read your post, and for those who care to respond to do so. Those are sometimes significant externalities, even if they are mostly invisible to you.

Increased content is only sometimes good. We increase the utility of this site when we limit how many duplicate discussions we have (hence super search), when people are encouraged to use other resources (like CPAN) pre-emptively, and when people are encouraged to work efficiently. This encourages a minimalistic approach. We also increase the utility of the site when the discussions are sufficiently interesting that more good contributers are drawn into the mix. That suggests a more verbose approach.

How to balance those out is a matter of sometimes difficult judgement calls. Even after the fact it can be a matter of debate as to whether someone succeeded. (FWIW, I thought your initial post was just fine and just wanted to comment on the idea of whether content per se was a good or bad thing...)