I think you should have added a note about the solution already given. Had you linked to it or named its author, it would be even better. Your reaction to the root node was "Did you and Matt Wright go to school together?". You know the code that that Matt writes, and I do too. But some people have never heard of this scary script archive. A very simple explanation could have cleared up a lot.

You chose not to tell anything about the efficiency of the reply, not to link, and not mention the better approach at all (either through mentioning the solution itself (it's only 20 characters), or refering to another post), leaving only the harsh bit.

I agree: the iterating solution is inefficient and clumsy (although at 133k/s (Athlon 900), the efficiency loss is not even notable in non-benchmarking scripts), and there is a better solution to it. I also think the author should have been told about it. I like your sarcastic approach, but it should be complemented with something else. The something else could have been a small reference to the "right WTDI", or an explanation of why the code is so much like Matt Wright's code and why that is bad.

Probably, some remember similar harsh posts from me, and I admit I have often been wrong in the same way. I will not retract those rude unhelping posts, but I will try to avoid them in the future. I hope you will too.

U28geW91IGNhbiBhbGwgcm90MTMgY
W5kIHBhY2soKS4gQnV0IGRvIHlvdS
ByZWNvZ25pc2UgQmFzZTY0IHdoZW4
geW91IHNlZSBpdD8gIC0tIEp1ZXJk