From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA09146; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:51:10 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA07887 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:51:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from qrnik.knm.org.pl (paf87.warszawa.sdi.tpnet.pl [217.96.225.87]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5JCp7SH022627 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:51:08 +0200 Received: from qrnik ([192.168.0.1] ident=qrczak) by qrnik.knm.org.pl with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1BbfJK-0003Pl-00 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:51:06 +0200 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Great Programming Language Shootout Revived From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" To: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <006201c455f4$bd8d45f0$9a823951@Pif> References: <06D9583C-C0FD-11D8-8AC7-000393863F70@exomi.com> <20040619022648.7864665d.nicolas.francois@free.fr> <006201c455f4$bd8d45f0$9a823951@Pif> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:51:06 +0200 Message-Id: <1087649466.5274.71.camel@qrnik> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 1.5.9.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40D436BB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 shootout:01 marcin:01 'qrczak':01 kowalczyk:01 qrczak:01 shorter:01 abstractions:01 marcin:01 kowalczyk:01 qrczak:01 nicolas:01 token:01 token:01 0200,:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk W li=B6cie z sob, 19-06-2004, godz. 13:56 +0200, Nicolas Janin napisa=B3(a)= : > Concerning the idea of zipping the source codes as a measure of code leng= th, > I find it quite good, as the zipped code is less sensitive to code layout > than a pure line count and is a decent measure of the information conveye= d. I don't like this as a measure of the amount of code which must be written and maintained, because copy&paste might actually come shorter or equal to introducing appropriate named abstractions, while being much worse design. I think token count is the most objective measure from measures which are reasonably easy to take automatically. If not token count, then line count, and finally character count. --=20 __("< Marcin Kowalczyk \__/ qrczak@knm.org.pl ^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/ ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners