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 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 'xsrc' in the path)

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

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 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM, namekuseijin wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Clements

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 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM, namekuseijin wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Clements >> 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. >> >> h

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 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Clements > 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 Unf

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 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 _ For list-relate

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 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:48 AM, John Clements > 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. > >

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 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 233781 ./racket/src/t