I wouldn't be surprised if software development was actually
exponential, however it is harder to measure improvement, and the
improvement is not a smooth as hardware improvement.
I guess that we would like to have a general measure of the growth of
software complexity, but I don't know if
Dear Robert,Similarly, who says I can't have a mind without a body? Won't it carry on existing in the mind of the Intelligent Designer?You could say so, just as a Linux OS could be sitting in a CD... but it wouldn't function, so for practical purposes, it is as good as non-existant. Thus, a mind
Crude quantitative measures are no good. For instance, the intro of OO
techniques can increase functionality with sometimes a decrease in the
number of lines of code. An example close to home for me was the
change from EcoLab 3 to EcoLab 4. The number of lines halved, but
functionality was
Like weighing Stroustrup versus Kernighan Richie ?? I think the C++
book weighs 4 times as much as the C book, but I'm sure C++ is more
than 4 times as powerful...
Cheers
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:36:00PM +0200, Carlos Gershenson wrote:
Crude quantitative measures are no good. For instance,
My wife found an excellent book that appears to have a number of interesting
connections to MOTH, NetLogo implementations, and emergent properties of
stochastic systems: Laws of the Game: How the Principles of Nature Govern
Chance by Manfred Eigen and Ruthild Winkler. The original German ISBN:
