Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Bokma wrote: > >> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It seems to me the discussion could actually be beneficial. If >>> several different coders gave similar responses, ie code >>> line/character count comparisons, we might be able to see if there >>> is a trend of any sort - the more "anecdotes" given and we start to >>> have trends - or maybe we don't. >> >> What's the point? So you can say: Perl code has on average 1.727 more >> lines compared to Python? > > That's more than we know right now. You never know what data will > reveal until you collect and analyze it.
1.727 is meaningless. It says nothing about your code, nor mine. > BTW I'm not limiting this discussion to lines of code. That was > simply the most convenient metric available. If people have other > metrics to consider, by all means post them. The number $ characters per square furlong. > More knowledge = more choice = better tools. When all you have is a > hammer, everything looks like a nail. It's as simple as that. If > you're happy playing with your hammers, fine. Go away and post in > some other thread. At least I am not as silly to claim that hammer A is better then hammer B because the handle of hammer A came from an oak tree that had a owl hooting 13 times at the full moon 7 times a year. >> People who just know either Perl or Python don't care much about such >> figures, or so I hope. > > I don't know Ruby, but if you could show me it produced significantly > shorter code with comparable readability to Python, I'd certainly look > into it. Yeah, I could have guessed that. [ .. ] > Code can always be improved, it's a question of resources. The point > is not what could be done better in my code, but what was done with my > skill and my time committment, and what others have done with their > skill and their time committment. If we have no way to see your skills, there is not really a point. > At some point I may post small snippets of each so others can gauge my > style and experience, but I'm afraid it will devolve into a code > crtitiquing fest. At least people can learn from that. If you don't understand that everbody has his/her own coding style, you have a lot to learn. >>> Ok I'm going to end with a flamebait - but I would posit, ALL OTHER >>> THINGS BEING EQUAL - that a smaller number of characters and lines >>> in code is more maintainable than larger number of characters and >>> lines in the code. >> >> And I think that's why a lot of people posted very negative, in the >> hope that people would not be tempted to make the above very dumb >> statement. > > That's not a dumb statement, it's a sensible and testable hypothesis. So you *do* still have a lot to learn. Isn't one Xah Lee enough? > step, etc, etc. Didn't your mother ever tell you how science works? > It's not all bunsen burners and test tubes. Nor is it: I have have examined some random samples of which I give only a vague description. Now get your own random samples, and lets talk science. > To everyone who thinks this thread is pointless or a bad idea: please > just go away. Your objections have been noted, at this point you're > not contributing anything to the discussion. Welcome to Usenet. How it really works can be seen by having a peek at the archives. Since you love science, you'll will find the answer very fast. -- John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/ personal page: http://johnbokma.com/ Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/ Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
