Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

n1vux (1492)

  (email not shown publicly) ... x.cgi?BillRicker
AOL IM: n1vux (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Yahoo! ID: n1vux (Add User, Send Message)

Only started with Perl4 and Perl5 in 1995. I was doing AWK etc for 12 years before that, and resisted switching. I've been doing OO since before C++ hit bigtime, with Objective-C and SmallTalk, so I really like the (no longer new) Perl5 OO style; and the Lispish Map style is also an old friend. What do I hack with Perl? All data that passes my way; systems monitoring scripts at $DayJob, weather data at night, and I cheat on NPR word puzzles. Member: [] [] /. LinkedIn []

N1VUX is my FCC-issued ham radio callsign.

Journal of n1vux (1492)

Tuesday March 14, 2006
11:48 AM

CPAN Purity Test [c/o Planet Debian]

[ #28988 ]
One of the Debian Developers, Joey Hess, blogged about his Perl script to "Test how much of a the guts of a program comes from sweet, delicious CPAN, and how much is nasty perl code you wrote." via

I'm not sure that's a really useful reuse metric, but it's sure amusing.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I was curious to see what he did about that, and discovered he wrote quite a bit of code that really doesn't do anything. He loads a program then traverses %INC. He skips certain entries, and everything else must be from CPAN ignoring core modules, and anything else he neglected not to skip. He then sums all the lines (and CPAN modules are more likely to have a lot of POD) from the files and adds those to either the CPAN or the local count.

    That's pretty useless outside of writing Perl code to kill time.
    • That's pretty useless outside of writing Perl code to kill time.

      Agreed, totalling interesting looking things included versus size of script is a strange number. Meaningless.

      As always, we should say "Compared to what?".

      A more plausibly useful metric of reuse would use static or dyanmic analysis to determine how many lines/functions/feature-points of the use'd modules were actually used., compared to same for the script. I'm not sure even that is going to be useful to anyone but PHB's, but at least it's le

      # I had a sig when sigs were cool
      use Sig;