No, I didn't. You've misread and combined the following previous quotes: "1. low-level language, requiring 30 lines of code" and "Assembly - Many lines"
And I never mentioned "C", not anywhere! I'd never state that "assembly is 30x longer", because the statement is absolute nonsense without specifying *which* assembly language I meant - and there are many... Please stop criticising things that I haven't actually said and using them as a diversionary tactic, it's getting to be quite frustrating. On 25 October 2010 22:39, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]>wrote: > @Kevin > You also said that some languages require 30x (!) less typing than assembly > which is a nonsense statement, as will demonstrated by the sample below. > > Look the ARM assembly version is has less/almomst the same tokens (i cant > be bothered to check but i know the ratio is not 1:5 or 1:30) than the c > version. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture > > In the C programming > language<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29>, > the loop is: > > while(i!=j) { > if (i > j) > > i -= j; > else > j -= i; > } > > In ARM assembly <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_language>, the > loop is: > > loop CMP Ri, Rj ; set condition "NE" if (i != j), > ; "GT" if (i > j), > > ; or "LT" if (i < j) > SUBGT Ri, Ri, Rj ; if "GT" (greater than), i = i-j; > > SUBLT Rj, Rj, Ri ; if "LT" (less than), j = j-i; > BNE loop ; if "NE" (not equal), then loop > > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Kevin Wright > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I think it's fair to say that someone wouldn't go advertising a reduction >> in code size based on shorter identifiers and deleted comments :) >> >> Which only leaves a higher level of abstraction as the means of achieving >> said reduction! >> >> >> On 25 October 2010 13:32, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> My guess is the original poster also meant 'all else being equal', not >>> 'if I remove levels of abstraction'. >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > But there is so much more to all of this than something a banal as >>> > attributing it to numbers of characters. For example levels of >>> abstraction >>> > within a method, naming, method size etc, etc, etc. I just can't >>> understand >>> > why people simply bound around these pointless conjectures and random >>> > percentages figures. >>> > >>> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Ricky Clarkson < >>> [email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Fewer lines, all else being equal, will on average lead to fewer bugs. >>> >> Programming is largely about reading, and the larger the code the >>> >> harder it is to spot a logic error. I'm not advocating Perl-like >>> >> obfuscation ($_ anyone?), removing identifiers that have meaning, but >>> >> instead advocating removal of boilerplate, and identifiers that have >>> >> no meaning. >>> >> >>> >> In a related topic, sometimes I find myself shortening code so that I >>> >> can see the bugs more clearly. I find it very effective. >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Miroslav Pokorny >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Kevin Wright < >>> [email protected]> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> No, I never stated that, because I don't believe it. >>> >> >> Using higher-level concepts with fewer *tokens* will reduce the >>> number >>> >> >> of >>> >> >> bugs. It just so happens that few tokens usually result in shorter >>> >> >> code. >>> >> > >>> >> > Thats not what you said, you made a generalised sweeping statement >>> that >>> >> > can >>> >> > only be wrong because nothing in software is ever that simple. >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I don't even consider comments when thinking about how long code >>> is, >>> >> >> because comments aren't code. >>> >> >> Using shorter identifiers *may* reduce the risk of bugs if they're >>> >> >> otherwise so long that they obscure the essential complexity of an >>> >> >> algorithm. Seriously, would you write something like this? >>> >> >> for(int >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration=0; >>> indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration<=authorsFromNameQuery.length; >>> >> >> ++indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration) { >>> >> >> Author currentAuthorBeingIteratedOver >>> >> >> = authorsFromNameQuery[indexOfAuthorInCurrentIteration] >>> >> >> // do something with the author >>> >> >> } >>> >> >> Do you NOT believe that shorter names would make the example >>> clearer? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On 25 October 2010 02:38, Miroslav Pokorny < >>> [email protected]> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> @Kevin >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I guess refactoring code so all identifiers are really short >>> single >>> >> >>> characters ( a human powered obfuscator) means i just made my code >>> >> >>> have less >>> >> >>> bugs..right ? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> If my class names are shorter and thus my source files have less >>> >> >>> characters does that mean my code has less bugs ? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> if my code has no comments does that mean it has less bugs ? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> -- >>> >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> >> >>> Groups >>> >> >>> "The Java Posse" group. >>> >> >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> >> >>> [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >>> . >>> >> >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> >> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -- >>> >> >> Kevin Wright >>> >> >> >>> >> >> mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] >>> >> >> pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright >>> >> >> twitter: @thecoda >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -- >>> >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> >> >> Groups >>> >> >> "The Java Posse" group. >>> >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> >> >> [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >>> . >>> >> >> For more options, visit this group at >>> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > mP >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> >> > Groups >>> >> > "The Java Posse" group. >>> >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> >> > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >>> . >>> >> > For more options, visit this group at >>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>> >> "The Java Posse" group. >>> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> >> [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >>> . >>> >> For more options, visit this group at >>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>> >> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>> > "The Java Posse" group. >>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >>> . >>> > For more options, visit this group at >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "The Java Posse" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Wright >> >> mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] >> pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright >> twitter: @thecoda >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "The Java Posse" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > mP > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
