December 2002 comp.lang.* stats

[Aaron K. Johnson]

In message <mailman.1043529946.4534.python-list at python.org>, Laura Creighton
wrote:
> > In message <3E32E5D6.82887F98 at engcorp.com>, Peter Hansen wrote:
> > > "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > A person is what counts as a 'unique poster'. A message ID alone
> would no
> > t
> > > > measure the 'user base' factor "im interested in.
> > > > 
> > > > Spam is still a problem to consider. It's not perfect yet.......
> > > 
> > > Spam is probably a problem best ignored.  It would probably
> > > affect all those groups equally anyway.
> > > 
> > > -Peter
> > 
> > I agree. Plus, I'm not interested in working THAT hard to be that
> > anal-retentive about data which some would argue is still vague enough to
> be
> > discounted.
> > 
> > -Aaron. 
> 
> Just FYI -- I am aware this is something that you are mostly doing for
> fun, and don't want to spoil it for you -- but you mentioned that you
> wanted to be 'more scientific' about this.  This question -- do
> I bother with this data?  is it significant?  is the meat of the
> 'is what I am doing science' question.  I also want to check to make
> sure that you are aware that 'I don't know the factors which contribute
> to having X in set Y' or even 'Nobody knows' or 'It is impossible to
> know' implies 'it will affect all sets equally'.  That belief is bad
> science.

uh-oh. the science police! ;)

yes, Laura, I'm aware that there are too many unknowns to make this hardcore.
I'm just having fun, solving problems w/Python, and enjoying the fame that it's
generating among all five of you who wrote back.

Plus, I'm enjoying seeing python come out above perl and javascript (after I'd
eliminated a bug!).

Cheers,
Aaron.