On Wednesday 26 March 2008 15:16, Craig Citro wrote: > Did we check in a big chunk of the ntl wrapper under your name? (That > one would be fair, of course). Or maybe when we moved libcsage into > the sage tree, that went in under your name?
I suspect that both of these things are a big contributor (the ntl_wrap.cc file was quite long). I guess the real point is that as with all lines-of-code-counting metrics this one needs to be viewed with a bit of suspicion. Anyhow, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Here's a relevant & wise quote from Edsgar Dijkstra: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html *** ... From there it is only a small step to measuring "programmer productivity" in terms of "number of lines of code produced per month". This is a very costly measuring unit because it encourages the writing of insipid code, but today I am less interested in how foolish a unit it is from even a pure business point of view. My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger. *** -- Joel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
