--- Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 02 November 2007 19:03, Isaac Gouy wrote: > > It's slightly interesting that, while we're happily opining about > LOCs > > and gz, no one has even tried to show that switching from LOCs to > gz > > made a big difference in those "program bulk" rankings, or even > > provided a specific example that they feel shows how gz is > > misrepresentative - all opinion, no data. > > Why gzip and not run-length encoding, Huffman coding, arithmetic > coding, block > sorting, PPM etc.? > > Choosing gzip is completely subjective and there is no logical reason > to think > that gzipped byte count reflects anything of interest. Why waste any > time > studying results in such an insanely stupid metric? Best case you'll > end up > concluding that the added complexity had no adverse effect on the > results. > > In contrast, LOC has obvious objective merits: it reflects the amount > of code > the developer wrote and the amount of code the developer can see > whilst > reading code.
How strange that you've snipped out the source code shape comment that would undermine what you say - obviously LOC doesn't tell you anything about how much stuff is on each line, so it doesn't tell you about the amount of code that was written or the amount of code the developer can see whilst reading code. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
