--- Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -snip- > It still tells you how much content you can see on a given amount of > vertical space.
And why would we care about that? :-) > I think the point, however, is that while LOC is not perfect, gzip is > worse. How do you know? > > Best case you'll end up concluding that the added complexity had > > no adverse effect on the results. Best case would be seeing that the results were corrected against bias in favour of long-lines, and ranked programs in a way that looks-right when we look at the program source code side-by-side. > It's completely arbitrary and favours languages wich requires > you to write tons of book keeping (semantic noise) as it will > compress down all that redundancy quite a bit (while the programmer > would still has to write it, and maintain it). > So gzip is even less useful than LOC, as it actively *hides* the very > thing you're trying to meassure! You might as well remove it > alltogether. I don't think you've looked at any of the gz rankings, or compared the source code for any of the programs :-) > Or, as has been suggested, count the number of words in the program. > Again, not perfect (it's possible in some languages to write things > which has no whitespace, but is still lots of tokens). Wouldn't that be "completely arbitrary"? __________________________________________________ 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
