Re: [racket-dev] relative lines of C in gracket vs. gracket2

2010-10-29 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:48:43 -0700, John Clements wrote: I took a look at the size of our C code base (all files ending in .c, .h, .cpp, and .cxx, not including those with 'xsrc' in the path) to see how much smaller gracket2 is, and (assuming I didn't miss something major) the difference is

Re: [racket-dev] relative lines of C in gracket vs. gracket2

2010-10-29 Thread Robby Findler
Go, Matthew! :) Slay the evil beast. Robby On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote: At Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:48:43 -0700, John Clements wrote: I took a look at the size of our C code base (all files ending in .c, .h, .cpp, and .cxx, not including those with

[racket-dev] relative lines of C in gracket vs. gracket2

2010-10-28 Thread John Clements
I took a look at the size of our C code base (all files ending in .c, .h, .cpp, and .cxx, not including those with 'xsrc' in the path) to see how much smaller gracket2 is, and (assuming I didn't miss something major) the difference is truly impressive. The below is ... | wc | sort -n | tail,

Re: [racket-dev] relative lines of C in gracket vs. gracket2

2010-10-28 Thread Joe Marshall
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:48 AM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote: So, if I'm reading this correctly, we've gone from ~590K lines of C to about ~340K lines of C. That's amazing. Something is wrong. In your listing, the only two lines that have changed are these: 8404 22017

Re: [racket-dev] relative lines of C in gracket vs. gracket2

2010-10-28 Thread Jay McCarthy
That's tail -9 so he's dropped all the other things. Jay On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Joe Marshall jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:48 AM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote: So, if I'm reading this correctly, we've gone from ~590K lines of C to about

Re: [racket-dev] relative lines of C in gracket vs. gracket2

2010-10-28 Thread namekuseijin
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote: So, if I'm reading this correctly, we've gone from ~590K lines of C to about ~340K lines of C. That's amazing. hope that doesn't mean more obfuscated C code, though... :p

Re: [racket-dev] relative lines of C in gracket vs. gracket2

2010-10-28 Thread Carl Eastlund
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote: So, if I'm reading this correctly, we've gone from ~590K lines of C to about ~340K lines of C. That's amazing. hope that doesn't mean

Re: [racket-dev] relative lines of C in gracket vs. gracket2

2010-10-28 Thread namekuseijin
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote: So, if I'm reading this correctly, we've gone from ~590K lines of C

Re: [racket-dev] relative lines of C in gracket vs. gracket2

2010-10-28 Thread Robby Findler
Conveniently, however, it isn't the broken one that we used here. Whew. Robby On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com