Lyle Kopnicky wrote:
I think it's a combination of 1) the expressiveness measure is too
simplistic, measuring number of lines alone, or counting comments, and
2) the problem set is skewed toward number-crunching, which is not
(say) Prolog's strong suit.
Also there is a strong tendency to
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Paul Johnson p...@cogito.org.uk wrote:
Lyle Kopnicky wrote:
I think it's a combination of 1) the expressiveness measure is too
simplistic, measuring number of lines alone, or counting comments, and 2)
the problem set is skewed toward number-crunching, which
Thanks for the link. I find the expressiveness results odd. How can SML/NJ
be among the least expressive languages, while MLTON and OCAML are among the
most expressive? How is Smalltalk less expressive than Java? Why are Prolog
and Mercury among the least expressive?
I think it's a combination of
lists:
I think it's a combination of 1) the expressiveness measure is too simplistic,
measuring number of lines alone, or counting comments
It isn't measuring lines of code, it is measuring the Gzip compression
Also, there's a few bogons in the data (it was graphed against 2005-6
results, and
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Lyle Kopnicky li...@qseep.net wrote:
Why are Prolog and Mercury among the least expressive?
Well, I don't know about SML/NJ, since I don't see anything obviously
wrong at
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=alllang=smlnjlang2=ghcbox=1
But
gwern0:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Lyle Kopnicky li...@qseep.net wrote:
Why are Prolog and Mercury among the least expressive?
Well, I don't know about SML/NJ, since I don't see anything obviously
wrong at
Instead of GZip metrics for code size, maybe a good measure of
imperative language code size would be the cyclomatic complexity
metric.
It would also be interesting to see results for Fortran, Java, C++,
etc. across a range of old and newer compilers.
Can one measure cyclomatic complexity for
