Well, I don't like examples very much, neither hardware nor software ones. Of course, you can publish a 555 based monoflop, for instance, but there are so many additional specifications in a real application, that the simple example will 100% fail to do its job. That's why I always call a given snippet by me an "example", a "starting points for experimenting", etc.

Think about this 555 monoflop again. Reading carefully the datasheet tells, that the next trigger pulse must not arrive too early. Also, at power-on an unwanted extra pulse is produced. Next disadvantage, trigger pulse must meet certain slew rate and width specifications. Then you have huge noise on the supply line, which can totally erode performance of rest circuitry, when not being properly filtered. Etc. etc. Yes, you can make up a nearly endless list of things that must be taken care, when designing such a stupid simple seeming 555 monoflop in a real application.

Now, as experience tells, the newbie will NOT understand the example as "example", but as ready solution. Following the motto, the rest can be designed later on, when I have more time...

So, I don't find it a good way to publish naked snippets without refering to a certain context. The certain context should be the actual posting of a newbie.

I think we should rethink our rules about posting code in order to help a newbie. We should not refuse flatly the beg for help, but should give him code examples within his thread. Of course, only when he proofs us, that he isn't a lazy bone.
Why not giving hardware and software examples within a thread? Would be much more helpful, then having "up in the air hanging" snippets somewhere in an "example library".

A newbie must realize, that learning is a time consuming process. These head bangings and desperations ARE needed, there's no short cut. Like you cannot make sports without sweating...

Kai