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 OAA09095; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:49:45 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA09088 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:49:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from salt.cs.brown.edu (salt-dmz.cs.brown.edu [128.148.32.122]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5JCngEV014979 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:49:42 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by salt.cs.brown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE8CD870C; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from salt.cs.brown.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (salt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25735-02; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from null.cs.brown.edu (null.cs.brown.edu [128.148.38.190]) by salt.cs.brown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195E5D86C7; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from twix.cs.brown.edu (twix [128.148.31.40]) by null.cs.brown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D1A3CAD; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by twix.cs.brown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5B857264; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from twix.cs.brown.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (twix [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14889-04; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spikeshomepc (meylan-1-82-225-49-106.fbx.proxad.net [82.225.49.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by twix.cs.brown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A3D57251; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "John Hughes" To: "'Nicolas Janin'" , Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Great Programming Language Shootout Revived Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:48:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <008401c455f6$51c5f4a0$9a823951@Pif> Thread-Index: AcRV9rDQP3xWtTnZQlCcRemaLJvpCAABIoyA Message-Id: <20040619124758.81A3D57251@twix.cs.brown.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at cs.brown.edu X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at cs.brown.edu X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40D43666.001 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 idioms:01 --john:01 2004:99 caml-list:01 shootout:01 50,000:99 kilobytes:01 bug:01 faq:01 faq:01 beginner's:01 beginners:01 bin:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk As someone who used to write some code in APL, I was always a fan of LOC as a measure of *something*, because APL always wins. It used to be said that a line of APL was like 40 lines of FORTRAN...but that because of that, you should expect each to take the same amount of time to read. The point of APL being compact was not that the programs were smaller, but that idioms were easier to recognize/learn/use, and the structure of the language helped the programmer structure his/her thought. I actually believe that those are two of the advantages of ML as well. --John > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr > [mailto:owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Nicolas Janin > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 2:10 PM > To: Nicolas FRANCOIS (AKA El Bofo); caml-list@inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Great Programming Language Shootout Revived > > Thinking about it a little more, the good thing with LOC > count is, as I've read somewhere else, in large softwares > (say > 50,000 LOC), LOC count was quite a fairly good measure > of the size of a project in terms of spent resources. In > other words, according to surveys, the effort involved (as > measured in man-months) was fairly proportional to the LOC > count, which is why LOC count still prevails as a measurement > of a software project. > However there has never been any survey measuring code size > in terms of zipped kilobytes unfortunately, although one > might suspect the correlation between this measurement and > the effort involved would be stronger than with LOC count. > > Also, it is not obvious at all how this translates to small > programs of <200 lines like in the shootout. > > > ___[ Pub ]____________________________________________________________ > Inscrivez-vous gratuitement sur Tandaime, Le site de rencontres ! > http://rencontre.rencontres.com/index.php?origine=4 > > ------------------- > 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 > ------------------- 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