User:Thundergnat

My Favorite Languages
Language	Proficiency
Perl	Moderately Proficient
Perl 6	Still seems like I use it all the time
Raku	Use it all the time

License:

Any code which I have submitted to Rosettacode may be used under the Unlicense.

I would appreciate that any use includes a link back to the Rosettacode page from which it was obtained (but obviously would have no way to enforce that.)

Reports:

• Rank languages by popularity
• List authors of task descriptions
• Count task examples by language: Top 10
• Count task examples by language: 11 - 20
• Count task examples by language: 21 - 30
• Count task examples by language: 31 - 40

Utilities:

Tampermonkey or Greasemonkey javascript applets

• Add language parameters to Category task entry links - See this Village Pump page for details. Presently @ version 0.7 (2021/06/16)
• Syntax highlighting toggle Toggle the task syntax highlighting off and on. Presently @ version 0.1 (2021/06/10)

Resources:

• Offsite repository of resource files for various tasks

Language Stats:

As part of my reports I generate weekly (listed above) I have started to collect some statistics on languages that have a large number of entries. (For now, the cut off is 1000.) A sufficiently large number of entries should average out outliers and give at least an reasonable overview of how different languages stack up.

Note that this is purely for my own entertainment and curiosity. I strenuously want to avoid people making efforts to optimize for one metric or another. Many of these are heavily influenced by a particular stylistic choice made by a prolific entry author. None of these are good or bad. Just observations.

Comments aren't filtered out, so entries that have lots of comments will have higher character counts. That isn't a bad thing though. Quite the opposite in fact. The whole point of Rosettacode is to learn how different languages can accomplish the same task. Lots of comments is a good thing.

How the various metrics are calculated / what they mean. Averages are the sum of all of that item in every entry divided by the total number of tasks with an entry, rounded to the nearest integer or percentage.

• Task count - The number of tasks for which there is an entry in that language.
• Average lines per entry - The average number of lines in code blocks per entry. Multiple versions under the same task all count as lines per task. (If there are four versions and each has 25 lines, it counts as 100 for that task.)
• Average number of character - Average number of characters inside <lang *></lang> blocks per task including whitespace.
• Average whitespace - How many of the above characters are white space? (Including new line characters.)
• Average percent alpha-numerics - What percentage of the non-white space characters are alphabetic or numeric?
• Average percent non-alpha-numerics - What percentage of the non-white space characters are not alphabetic or numeric? (Punctuation, symbols, etc)
• Average percent non-ASCII - What percentage of the non-white space characters are not ASCII characters?
• Syntax highlighting - What syntax highlighter does it use in order from most to least common. (Note that some variation is expected, especially for tasks like Call a foreign-language function, Rosetta Code/Find bare lang tags or probably the largest source of oddball <lang *> tags: Rosetta Code/Fix_code_tags.)

As of 2022-03-06

Language	Task Count	Avg. # Lines / Entry	Avg. # Characters	Avg. % White space	Avg. % Alphanumerics	Avg. %Non Alphanumerics	Avg. % Non-ASCII	Syntax highlighting
Phix	1518	53	1703	32.74 %	78.38 %	21.62 %	0.03 %	Phix r csharp javascript c
Wren	1512	55	1582	31.59 %	75.74 %	24.26 %	0.1 %	ecmascript c go javascript C foo bar python xml baz bash
Julia	1491	33	975	27.82 %	77.11 %	22.89 %	0.28 %	julia Julia python html5 ruby html xml cpp lua
Raku	1473	30	883	28.83 %	69.3 %	30.7 %	0.57 %	perl6 c C shell xml XML html bash
Go	1460	77	1817	34.43 %	75.26 %	24.74 %	0.11 %	go Go html bash c xml proto thrift html5
Perl	1441	34	919	27.01 %	68.18 %	31.82 %	0.1 %	perl Perl bash Shell html5 c latex
Nim	1398	48	1326	24.65 %	75.52 %	24.48 %	1.12 %	Nim nim python Python ruby C c $1 xml Nimrod
Python	1351	71	1997	30.73 %	75.45 %	24.55 %	0.04 %	python Python html5 bash c cmd xml python3 ebnf Shell
C	1199	78	1846	28.68 %	72.52 %	27.48 %	0.01 %	c C cpp bash XML d Assembly go make html5 sh Shell perl
REXX	1144	55	3358	40.33 %	68.44 %	31.56 %	8.48 %	rexx REXX Rexx cobol sh
J	1134	27	755	26.92 %	69.48 %	30.52 %	6.49 %	j J bash sh %s c foo baz make C bnf html5 SNUSP python bar xml
Kotlin	1131	47	1363	33.21 %	77.62 %	22.38 %	0.04 %	scala kotlin Kotlin c C html5 Groovy scheme xml groovy HTML5 java
Java	1126	66	2061	33.42 %	78.56 %	21.44 %	0.01 %	java java5 Java Java5 c bash xml html5 make foo Java8 java 12 shell cmd bar
Haskell	1114	44	1347	28.34 %	76.88 %	23.12 %	0.08 %	haskell Haskell bash text html5 sh c
Mathematica	1106	11	409	17.5 %	70.75 %	29.25 %	0.04 %	Mathematica mathematica foo baz "~~ x~~" bar barf sh
Ruby	1090	32	824	26.22 %	76.49 %	23.51 %	0.06 %	ruby Ruby bash c html5 foo tcl rust baz bar
Racket	1089	33	1118	26.47 %	75.05 %	24.95 %	0.29 %	racket Racket scheme bash html5 xml C cmd
C++	1085	73	1978	29.21 %	72.69 %	27.31 %	0.02 %	cpp Cpp C++ c CPP c++ sh html5 make C asm text d cmake bash
zkl	1011	19	688	17.98 %	69.69 %	30.31 %	0.03 %	zkl c bash csharp r html5
FreeBASIC	1005	46	1203	30.61 %	82.32 %	17.68 %	0.03 %	freebasic FreeBASIC FreeBasic qbasic Freebasic zxbasic basic c

Older commentary

Second pass through after a lot of minor patches to the site and custom syntax highlighting filtering added. Should be a lot more accurate less inaccurate now. Numbers probably still don't mean anything, but they aren't quite as large outright whoppers. J numbers are still way overstated due to the very common decision to just include the output inside the language tags rather than in a separate output section. Not really sure what to do about it (if anything.) I really don't want to take on trying to untangle that mess. --Thundergnat (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Some observations: Phix numbers are completely bogus due to the custom syntax highlighting code polluting every entry. Eventually I'll look into filtering. This is a very preliminary first whack at it. I expected Raku to have a higher percent of non-ASCII characters and was very surprised by J and REXX having so much. On closer investigation, J and REXX entries make heavy use of box line drawing characters... which aren't ASCII. Syntax highlighting directives are all over the place. Case doesn't matter but spelling nominally does. Though, to be fair, most of the syntax highlighting are very minor variations, so getting it wrong probably doesn't change much. There are a whole bunch of obvious typos in there too though. Sigh. --Thundergnat (talk), 08 February

Sorry about the Phix syntax highlighting mess. I'd love to use standard Geshi, and in fact do on my own site, but waited 6 years and nothing happened. In a lovely world there would be a special page on RC containing the geshi highlighting files for all languages, that anyone could edit in the usual way with the usual single-click to undo any vandalism, and periodically (bi-annual would be plenty) some admin pushes updates into the geshi dir. I guess you could even have a <lang PhixRC> mechanism whereby "release candidate" geshi updates could be tried out on selected pages without risking damaging the whole site. Alternatively it should actually be fairly straightforward for a man of your talents to html-strip the Phix entries (just sayin), and/or I'm not above being tasked to go and clean up my own mess, which one day I still hope to be able to do (trust me, I too despise my own minor updates showing up as complete gobbledeygook). I also wonder if it would be at all useful for the syntax highlighting column to contain (first/random) links to offending pages, so I could find out what page it thinks is using say "PL/1" or "Phi"? --Pete Lomax (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)