Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Great Programming Language Shootout Revived
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-06-19 (18:51)
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@s...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Great Programming Language Shootout Revived
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Nicolas Janin wrote:

> 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.

I beleive it was Fred Brooks who first opinioned that programmers produced
about the same number of working lines of code per month no matter what
the language was- and that therefor higher level languages (by which he
meant Fortran and PL/1) that did more work in fewer lines of code were
more productive than lower level languages (by which he meant assembly 

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
                                - Gene Spafford 

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: