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 I Generate:

• 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 I Wrote:

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 I Host:

• 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 characters - 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 2022-08-14

Language	Task Count	Avg. # Lines / Entry	Avg. # Characters	Avg. % White space	Avg. % Alphanumerics	Avg. %Non Alphanumerics	Avg. % Non-ASCII	Syntax highlighting
Wren	1561	57	1648	31.56 %	75.83 %	24.17 %	0.09 %	ecmascript c go javascript C foo xml bar bash baz python
Phix	1559	55	1791	32.7 %	78.25 %	21.75 %	0.04 %	Phix c csharp javascript r
Julia	1530	34	1009	27.93 %	77.17 %	22.83 %	0.27 %	julia Julia ruby html5 python cpp html lua xml
Raku	1507	30	895	28.85 %	69.31 %	30.69 %	0.59 %	perl6 bash C c html rust shell XML xml
Go	1497	76	1808	34.57 %	75.23 %	24.77 %	0.1 %	go Go html bash c xml ecmascript futurebasic html5 proto thrift
Perl	1467	34	924	27.03 %	68.14 %	31.86 %	0.1 %	perl Perl bash Shell c html5 latex
Nim	1402	48	1324	24.66 %	75.53 %	24.47 %	1.12 %	Nim nim python Python ruby c C $1 Nimrod xml
Python	1394	72	2023	30.86 %	75.52 %	24.48 %	0.04 %	python Python bash html5 c cmd python3 ebnf QB64 Shell xml
J	1267	27	758	26.95 %	69.62 %	30.38 %	6.63 %	j J bash sh %s C c foo bar baz bnf html5 make python SNUSP xml
C	1214	79	1863	28.74 %	72.56 %	27.44 %	0.01 %	c C cpp bash XML Assembly d go html5 make perl sh Shell
Mathematica	1177	11	410	17.43 %	70.89 %	29.11 %	0.04 %	Mathematica mathematica foo Wolfram Language "~~ x~~" bar barf baz sh
REXX	1146	55	3355	40.32 %	68.44 %	31.56 %	8.47 %	rexx REXX Rexx cobol sh
Java	1137	66	2071	33.54 %	78.56 %	21.44 %	0.01 %	java java5 Java Java5 c bash html5 xml foo make bar cmd java 12 java8 Java8 python shell
Haskell	1135	45	1351	28.34 %	76.86 %	23.14 %	0.08 %	haskell Haskell bash c html5 sh text
Kotlin	1132	47	1365	33.21 %	77.61 %	22.39 %	0.03 %	scala kotlin Kotlin C c Groovy groovy html5 HTML5 java Scheme scheme xml
C++	1112	73	1971	29.28 %	72.7 %	27.3 %	0.02 %	cpp Cpp C++ c c++ CPP sh html5 asm bash C cmake d make text
Ruby	1103	32	832	26.17 %	76.49 %	23.51 %	0.06 %	ruby Ruby bash c foo html5 bar baz rust tcl
Racket	1091	33	1139	26.49 %	75.09 %	24.91 %	0.29 %	racket Racket scheme bash C cmd html5 xml
FreeBASIC	1070	47	1234	30.88 %	82.38 %	17.62 %	0.03 %	freebasic FreeBASIC FreeBasic qbasic basic c Freebasic zxbasic
zkl	1011	19	688	17.98 %	69.69 %	30.31 %	0.03 %	zkl c bash csharp html5 r
Sidef	1003	22	545	30.82 %	70.17 %	29.83 %	0.45 %	ruby sidef shell html5

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)