on Friday, May 19, 2006 11:26 PM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| All I would ask is what objective evidence does either of actually
| have? How can you know? What is a fair way to even count line
| numbers? From there how do we begin to objectively measure software
| quality? That's why this discu
"George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, I think I get it now. Spamvertizing _one_ site is worth your
> host's subscription; doing it for _four_ sites at your signature is
> perfectly ok though.
Do yourself and many others a favour before you post again, educate
yourself on Usenet. It mi
John Bokma wrote:
> Funny though, how you have a problem with a thread that side steps to Perl
> only for 4 or 5 postings, but have no problem with a hit & run post in 5
> groups to spamvertize a site.
>
> Have fun with the pondering btw.
>
> --
> John MexIT: http://
"George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>> "George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ Xah Lee ]
>> [1] He is looking for another hoster btw.
>
> This must feel really empowering huh ?
I am sure I've had quite some help. Also, you made quite a mistake. I have
0 power,
John Bokma wrote:
> "George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > John Bokma wrote:
> >
> >> "George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in
> >> > a perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about
>
"George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> "George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in
>> > a perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about
>> > the perl community is rather
John Bokma wrote:
> "George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in
> > a perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about
> > the perl community is rather unproductive and offtopic for a python
> > newsgroup.
Larry Bates wrote:
> Sorry, I don't buy this. I can write REALLY short programs that don't
> handle exceptions, don't provide for logging for debugging purposes, don't
> allow
> for future growth, etc. I find that 60% of my code has nothing to do with
> the actual algorithm or function I'm tryin
George Sakkis wrote:
> Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in a
> perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about the
> perl community is rather unproductive and offtopic for a python
> newsgroup.
No offense taken. It's definitely OT. I left it
"George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in
> a perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about
> the perl community is rather unproductive and offtopic for a python
> newsgroup.
Use a real Usenet client, an
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You lecturing people on pissing contests, that's rich. Nice way to
> duck the issue and sound like a winner.
Then you've missed what a discussion really is. It's not about winning,
it's about learning. Sadly you missed that point.
> Wake me when you
Edward Elliott wrote:
> This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for what
> it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just please
> don't turn this into a pissing contest.
>
> I'm in the process of converting some old perl programs to python. These
> pr
Edward Elliott wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
> > Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> A little out-of-order execution seems useful here. ;)
> >
> > No, not interested in a pissing contest. Your statement that the Perl
> > community encourages importing is *encouraged* (over using OO w
John Bokma wrote:
> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A little out-of-order execution seems useful here. ;)
>
> No, not interested in a pissing contest. Your statement that the Perl
> community encourages importing is *encouraged* (over using OO without
> importing) is false.
The c
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A little out-of-order execution seems useful here. ;)
No, not interested in a pissing contest. Your statement that the Perl
community encourages importing is *encouraged* (over using OO without
importing) is false.
--
John
A little out-of-order execution seems useful here. ;)
John Bokma wrote:
> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can readily believe that the "community" frequenting the newsgroups,
>> mailing lists, and blogs don't encourage it anymore. But that's a
>> tiny fraction of all perl programm
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> like "from X import *" which are generally frowned on in python
> while 'use MOD qw(id)' is encouraged in perl.
Not by me, and I doubt it is in general.
>>>
>>> W
John Bokma wrote:
> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
like "from X import *" which are generally frowned on in python while
'use MOD qw(id)' is encouraged in perl.
>>>
>>> Not by me, and I doubt it is in general.
>>
>> Well it's all over the Perl Cookbook.
>
> Yeah, sure, a
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> The question is how to count explicit names like module.class.func;
>>> should that be 1 identifier or 3? Counting as 3 would reward things
>>> like "from X import *" which are ge
John Bokma wrote:
> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The question is how to count explicit names like module.class.func;
>> should that be 1 identifier or 3? Counting as 3 would reward things
>> like "from X import *" which are generally frowned on in python while
>> 'use MOD qw(id
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is how to count explicit names like module.class.func;
> should that be 1 identifier or 3? Counting as 3 would reward things
> like "from X import *" which are generally frowned on in python while
> 'use MOD qw(id)' is encouraged in perl.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But first things first... and this one I think is solvable - their has
> got to be an equitable way to count how much code was written - maybe
> it isn't lines maybe it is
> ANd that's it - not can we make a qualitative
> statement beyond that. But simply can we q
> Yes, like the shorter version might be overlooking many real world
> situations and is naive code. As for generalization, if you bet that the
> shorter one is later written, that's to me a generalization. I agree that
> there is a change that after reexamining the code, and algorithm can be
> wr
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > But if a 1 person, using 1 language, with the same set of tools
>> > withing a 3 month period implements the same algo without bugs -
>> > I'll bet you the shorter one was t
John Bokma wrote:
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But if a 1 person, using 1 language, with the same set of tools withing
> > a 3 month period implements the same algo without bugs - I'll bet you
> > the shorter one was theone written second.
>
> You might lose that bet very
OT, sort of, but...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If that
> quoting mechanism is available on the web interface and I haven't found
> it - I'd love to know how to use it.
Click "show options" and THEN hit "reply". It's a bit counterintuitive,
but the entire message to which you reply is then shown.
Terry Hancock wrote:
> Edward Elliott wrote:
>
>>For inquiries into real-world code, it's enough to
>>believe that I'm not lying
>>
> So I don't make assumptions about people without some kind
> of evidence. There *are* plenty of "bad guys" out there, so
> one learns both to have a thick skin and
Edward Elliott wrote:
>For inquiries into real-world code, it's enough to
>believe that I'm not lying
>
Yeah, well, this is the internet -- I've gotten emails trying to
sell me ex-soviet rocket-launchers and child porn.*
So I don't make assumptions about people without some kind
of evidence. Ther
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if a 1 person, using 1 language, with the same set of tools withing
> a 3 month period implements the same algo without bugs - I'll bet you
> the shorter one was theone written second.
You might lose that bet very often. I see often that additi
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> quoting mechanism is available on the web interface and I haven't found
> it - I'd love to know how to use it.
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=14213
> Also i use the threaded view on
> the web client, so I have little trouble
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
>
>> But the real point is that no one here can make
>> any reasonably objective assessment of whether your "data" is
>> meaningful unless you post examples. That's what creates the
>> hostility, I think.
>
> Fair enough. But see
Thanks Ben,
I actually don't spend a whole lot of time on newsgroups. I don't use
my gmail account and use the groups thru the web interface. If that
quoting mechanism is available on the web interface and I haven't found
it - I'd love to know how to use it. Also i use the threaded view on
the w
As a coder, I wouldn't normally use the two different conventions. you
show in your examples. So it does little to tell us about the
importance or lack there of line count.
Let me state clearly - to use line count , in absence of other
considerations, IS meaningless.
But if a 1 person, using 1
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, and I thought it was respectful to actually address someone you
> are talking to.
On Usenet, it's respectful to all readers if you give a short quoted
passage from the message you're responding to, so we can follow the
discussion with context
Hmm, and I thought it was respectful to actually address someone you
are talking to. Must every statement be a reaction to a quotable
comment? In any case, I realize I was completley wrong. Please allow
me to retract my statement.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Terry Hancock wrote:
> But the real point is that no one here can make
> any reasonably objective assessment of whether your "data" is
> meaningful unless you post examples. That's what creates the
> hostility, I think.
Fair enough. But see my other posts on why I'm not interested in objective
Michael Tobis wrote:
>John Bokma wrote:
>>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>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
"Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> According to your silly rule the shortest book on a subject would be
>> the best. Now why is that false?
>
> No, according to the rule, the shorter of two books **containing the
> same information** would be best.
What is "the same information"?
> I
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
> Your hilarious...
If you learn to quote, you don't need to address me. But it's beyond you I
understand, so bye.
--
John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
personal page: ht
> According to your silly rule the shortest book on a subject would be the
> best. Now why is that false?
No, according to the rule, the shorter of two books **containing the
same information** would be best.
I don't think I'm a zealot. The original quote said "all else equal".
Certainly legible
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> corroborations. It's like a guy saying he saw a cloud that looks like
> a python. The cloud's gone now, but other people can watch other
> clouds and report what they see.
Good comparison, now does the cloud gazing make them better programmers?
--
J
John,
Your hilarious... I mean it, and as a compliment.
But seriously, I think your taking a discussion about trends and
twisting them to be about absolutes. Maybe others are too.
But, forgive the cheesy paraphrasing, but the solution should be as
simple as possible, and no simpler.
There is no
Ben Finney wrote:
> Until we get the code to examine independently, all we have is an
> anecdote. Thus the comparison to UFO sightings.
Except UFO sightings comprise a large body of data containing a vast number
of known false reports and others that appear to be in the same vein with
no verified
Ben Finney wrote:
> Until we get the code to examine independently, all we have is an
> anecdote. Thus the comparison to UFO sightings.
Except UFO sightings comprise a large body of data containing a vast number
of known false reports and others that appear to be in the same vein with
no verified
"Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The relevant corrolary is, "he programs best who programs least". I
> would have thought this was conventional wisdom among all dynamic
> language communities. Isn't that the whole point? By all means go back
> to C++ if you like to have three lines for
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
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> THe interest, on my part, is more academic than practical. I find
> data, particularly "dirty" data very fascinating
Me less, maybe that's why I originally had gg kill filed...
I prefer quotes.
--
John MexIT: http:
John Bokma wrote:
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 c
Thank you Ed for your eloquent statement. From now on I will avoid
humor in posts on this thread , my previous attempts were not useful or
productive - and I think there is something interesting in this
discussion.
It might be interesting to come up with a coding assignment for
developers to atte
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 mo
>Until we get the code to examine independently, all we have is an
>anecdote. Thus the comparison to UFO sightings.
touche!
Ed post the code, please - it'll be fun. We won't hurt you.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
THe interest, on my part, is more academic than practical. I find
data, particularly "dirty" data very fascinating, and I like trying to
find ways to make useful statements when all you have is bad data.
Maybe a pipe-dream, but it's still fun to try. So this little exercise
would be quite enjoyab
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The UFO comparison is silly, UFO sightings being based on time and
> space coordinates are inherently unreviewable. Ed's code and his
> analysis methods can be repeated (didn't say they were repeated,
> just they can be).
Until we get the code to
"[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
I am trying to understand why Edwards post generated such a negative
response. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with his statement -
because I don't think he is making one. He posted a data point, and
asked others to post the samething. About the only thing he could say,
is that for his codin
Sorry, data about reports about X *is* data about X unless you believe
the reports are uninfluenced by X. Like any proxy measure, it
introduces noise and uncertainty, but it is still data.
I can't imagine a motivation for Edward to make this up, so I accept
his anecdotes as data.
While it is poss
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > I responded to a post that seemed to claim that anecdotes about events
> > can be treated as data about events. They can't; that's what I'm
> > arguing.
>
> And conveniently ignoring the key part of my post. Here it is again f
Ben Finney wrote:
> I responded to a post that seemed to claim that anecdotes about events
> can be treated as data about events. They can't; that's what I'm
> arguing.
And conveniently ignoring the key part of my post. Here it is again for
those who missed it:
"Before the days of cheap video,
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Those samples can be independently verified by any skilled
> > observer at another time. This is what distinguishes them from
> > anecdotes, and breaks your analogy.
>
> Anyone who has my source files can run the same tests.
W
Ben Finney wrote:
> Those samples can be independently verified by any skilled observer at
> another time. This is what distinguishes them from anecdotes, and
> breaks your analogy.
Anyone who has my source files can run the same tests. The measures are
repeatable and reliable, even if at the mo
Michael Tobis wrote:
> Edward also asked if others had similar experiences. If others did, the
> assemblage of their opinions would in fact consttitute data. I have no
> idea why people are giving him such grief over this request.
Thank you, Michael. It was starting to feel like I'd asked about
Adam Jones wrote:
> Without any more information I would say the biggest contributor to
> this dissimilarity is your experience. Having spent an additional five
> years writing code you probably are better now at programming than you
> were then. I am fairly confident that if you were to take anot
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But again, the interesting thing to me isn't what could one do, it's
> what are people actually doing in the real world?
In that case: there is probably more Perl out there that makes us cry
compared to Python :-D.
--
John Bokma Freelance so
achates wrote:
> It probably says something about your coding style, particularly in
> perl. I've found (anecdotally of course) that while perl is potentially
> the more economical language, writing *legible* perl takes a lot more
> space.
I'm sure it does. My perl (from 5 years ago) may be cons
brian d foy wrote:
> You have to note that rewriting a program, even in the same language,
> tends to make it shorter, too. These things are measures of programmer
> skill, not the usefulness or merit of a particular language.
I completely agree. But you have to start somewhere.
> Shorter doe
"Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "The plural of anecdote is not data."
>
> It's a pithy quote, but it isn't QOTW in my book, simply because it
> isn't true in general. Talk to some paleoclimatologists.
>
> There is no way to get uniform measures of ancient climate. What
> should we
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
It's a pithy quote, but it isn't QOTW in my book, simply because it
isn't true in general. Talk to some paleoclimatologists.
There is no way to get uniform measures of ancient climate. What should
we do then? Should we ignore the information we have? Are the
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Evaluating my experiences yes, relating your own no.
>>
>> What would the point be? Most important to me would be: am I happy
>> with the result? And that rarely has to do with the nu
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward
Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for what
> it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just please
> don't turn this into a pissing contest.
>
> I'm in the process of con
Without any more information I would say the biggest contributor to
this dissimilarity is your experience. Having spent an additional five
years writing code you probably are better now at programming than you
were then. I am fairly confident that if you were to take another crack
at these same pro
It probably says something about your coding style, particularly in
perl. I've found (anecdotally of course) that while perl is potentially
the more economical language, writing *legible* perl takes a lot more
space.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Fair enough, but advocacy isn't at all what I'm after. Anecdotes are fine,
>after all what is data but a collection of anecdotes? :)
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
--
Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*>
John Bokma wrote:
> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Evaluating my experiences yes, relating your own no.
>
> What would the point be? Most important to me would be: am I happy with
> the result? And that rarely has to do with the number of lines of actual
> code or the programming la
Mirco Wahab wrote:
> Maybe somebody would change his style
> and had a lot of such statements before:
> which can be expressed in one
> line:
> This has a 1:4 line count then.
>
> Or, somebody used identifier like:
> and later:
> and saved ~40% characters.
> You got my point? ;-)
Hey I completel
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for
>>> what it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just
>>> please don't turn this into a p
Hi Edward
>Raw -Blanks -Comments
>lines chars lines chars lines chars
> mirror.py 16746321324597 1184009
> mirror.pl 30958362115647 1844790
Maybe somebody would chang
Ala Qumsieh wrote:
> Btw, do you include space chars that go toward indentating Python code
> in your count? If not, you should since they are required. Not so for
> Perl.
All chars are counted on lines which are counted. The perl and python
versions use the same amount and type of indentation,
Charles DeRykus wrote:
> This subject thread may be of great interest but I think an language
> advocacy mailing list would be a better forum.
Fair enough, but advocacy isn't at all what I'm after. Anecdotes are fine,
after all what is data but a collection of anecdotes? :) Seriously,
anecdot
Edward Elliott wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>Without seeing the actual code this is quite meaningless.
>
>
> Evaluating my experiences yes, relating your own no.
Well, quality of code is directly related to its author. Without knowing
the author personally, or at least seeing the code, your a
Edward Elliott wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for
>>> what it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just
>>> please don't turn this into a pissing contest.
>> Wit
John Bokma wrote:
> Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for
>> what it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just
>> please don't turn this into a pissing contest.
>
> Without seeing the actual code
Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for
> what it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just
> please don't turn this into a pissing contest.
Without seeing the actual code this is quite meaningless.
-
82 matches
Mail list logo
