on Friday, May 19, 2006 11:26 PM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| All I would ask is what objective evidence does either of actually
| have? How can you know? What is a fair way to even count line
| numbers? From there how do we begin to objectively measure software
| quality? That's why this
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Xah Lee ]
[1] He is looking for another hoster btw.
This must feel really empowering huh ?
I am sure I've had quite some help. Also, you made quite a mistake. I have
0 power, I just
John Bokma wrote:
Funny though, how you have a problem with a thread that side steps to Perl
only for 4 or 5 postings, but have no problem with a hit run post in 5
groups to spamvertize a site.
Have fun with the pondering btw.
--
John MexIT:
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, I think I get it now. Spamvertizing _one_ site is worth your
host's subscription; doing it for _four_ sites at your signature is
perfectly ok though.
Do yourself and many others a favour before you post again, educate
yourself on Usenet. It might
A little out-of-order execution seems useful here. ;)
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can readily believe that the community frequenting the newsgroups,
mailing lists, and blogs don't encourage it anymore. But that's a
tiny fraction of all perl programmers, and
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A little out-of-order execution seems useful here. ;)
No, not interested in a pissing contest. Your statement that the Perl
community encourages importing is *encouraged* (over using OO without
importing) is false.
--
John
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A little out-of-order execution seems useful here. ;)
No, not interested in a pissing contest. Your statement that the Perl
community encourages importing is *encouraged* (over using OO without
importing) is false.
The cookbook
Edward Elliott wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A little out-of-order execution seems useful here. ;)
No, not interested in a pissing contest. Your statement that the Perl
community encourages importing is *encouraged* (over using OO without
Edward Elliott wrote:
This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for what
it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just please
don't turn this into a pissing contest.
I'm in the process of converting some old perl programs to python. These
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You lecturing people on pissing contests, that's rich. Nice way to
duck the issue and sound like a winner.
Then you've missed what a discussion really is. It's not about winning,
it's about learning. Sadly you missed that point.
Wake me when you
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in
a perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about
the perl community is rather unproductive and offtopic for a python
newsgroup.
Use a real Usenet client, and you
George Sakkis wrote:
Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in a
perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about the
perl community is rather unproductive and offtopic for a python
newsgroup.
No offense taken. It's definitely OT. I left it
Larry Bates wrote:
Sorry, I don't buy this. I can write REALLY short programs that don't
handle exceptions, don't provide for logging for debugging purposes, don't
allow
for future growth, etc. I find that 60% of my code has nothing to do with
the actual algorithm or function I'm trying to
John Bokma wrote:
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in
a perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about
the perl community is rather unproductive and offtopic for a python
newsgroup.
Use a real
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in
a perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about
the perl community is rather unproductive and
John Bokma wrote:
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not trying to be as ass, but can you take this offline or at least in
a perl newsgroup ? Arguing on a particular fact or speculation about
the perl community is
Edward Elliott wrote:
For inquiries into real-world code, it's enough to
believe that I'm not lying
Yeah, well, this is the internet -- I've gotten emails trying to
sell me ex-soviet rocket-launchers and child porn.*
So I don't make assumptions about people without some kind
of evidence. There
Terry Hancock wrote:
Edward Elliott wrote:
For inquiries into real-world code, it's enough to
believe that I'm not lying
So I don't make assumptions about people without some kind
of evidence. There *are* plenty of bad guys out there, so
one learns both to have a thick skin and to rely on
OT, sort of, but...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that
quoting mechanism is available on the web interface and I haven't found
it - I'd love to know how to use it.
Click show options and THEN hit reply. It's a bit counterintuitive,
but the entire message to which you reply is then shown. It is
John Bokma wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if a 1 person, using 1 language, with the same set of tools withing
a 3 month period implements the same algo without bugs - I'll bet you
the shorter one was theone written second.
You might lose that bet very often. I see
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if a 1 person, using 1 language, with the same set of tools
withing a 3 month period implements the same algo without bugs -
I'll bet you the shorter one was theone written second.
Yes, like the shorter version might be overlooking many real world
situations and is naive code. As for generalization, if you bet that the
shorter one is later written, that's to me a generalization. I agree that
there is a change that after reexamining the code, and algorithm can be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But first things first... and this one I think is solvable - their has
got to be an equitable way to count how much code was written - maybe
it isn't lines maybe it is
ANd that's it - not can we make a qualitative
statement beyond that. But simply can we
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is how to count explicit names like module.class.func;
should that be 1 identifier or 3? Counting as 3 would reward things
like from X import * which are generally frowned on in python while
'use MOD qw(id)' is encouraged in perl.
Not by
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is how to count explicit names like module.class.func;
should that be 1 identifier or 3? Counting as 3 would reward things
like from X import * which are generally frowned on in python while
'use MOD qw(id)' is
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is how to count explicit names like module.class.func;
should that be 1 identifier or 3? Counting as 3 would reward things
like from X import * which are generally frowned on
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
like from X import * which are generally frowned on in python while
'use MOD qw(id)' is encouraged in perl.
Not by me, and I doubt it is in general.
Well it's all over the Perl Cookbook.
Yeah, sure, all over.
125 occurences
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
like from X import * which are generally frowned on in python
while 'use MOD qw(id)' is encouraged in perl.
Not by me, and I doubt it is in general.
Well it's all over the Perl
Sorry, data about reports about X *is* data about X unless you believe
the reports are uninfluenced by X. Like any proxy measure, it
introduces noise and uncertainty, but it is still data.
I can't imagine a motivation for Edward to make this up, so I accept
his anecdotes as data.
While it is
I am trying to understand why Edwards post generated such a negative
response. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with his statement -
because I don't think he is making one. He posted a data point, and
asked others to post the samething. About the only thing he could say,
is that for his
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me the discussion could actually be beneficial. If several
different coders gave similar responses, ie code line/character count
comparisons, we might be able to see if there is a trend of any sort -
the more anecdotes given and we start
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The UFO comparison is silly, UFO sightings being based on time and
space coordinates are inherently unreviewable. Ed's code and his
analysis methods can be repeated (didn't say they were repeated,
just they can be).
Until we get the code to
THe interest, on my part, is more academic than practical. I find
data, particularly dirty data very fascinating, and I like trying to
find ways to make useful statements when all you have is bad data.
Maybe a pipe-dream, but it's still fun to try. So this little exercise
would be quite
Until we get the code to examine independently, all we have is an
anecdote. Thus the comparison to UFO sightings.
touche!
Ed post the code, please - it'll be fun. We won't hurt you.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
John Bokma wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me the discussion could actually be beneficial. If several
different coders gave similar responses, ie code line/character count
comparisons, we might be able to see if there is a trend of any sort -
the more anecdotes
Thank you Ed for your eloquent statement. From now on I will avoid
humor in posts on this thread , my previous attempts were not useful or
productive - and I think there is something interesting in this
discussion.
It might be interesting to come up with a coding assignment for
developers to
John Bokma wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok I'm going to end with a flamebait - but I would posit, ALL OTHER
THINGS BEING EQUAL - that a smaller number of characters and lines in
code is more maintainable than larger number of characters and lines in
the code.
And I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
THe interest, on my part, is more academic than practical. I find
data, particularly dirty data very fascinating
Me less, maybe that's why I originally had gg kill filed...
I prefer quotes.
--
John MexIT:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me the discussion could actually be beneficial. If
several different coders gave similar responses, ie code
line/character count comparisons, we might be able to see if there
Michael Tobis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The relevant corrolary is, he programs best who programs least. I
would have thought this was conventional wisdom among all dynamic
language communities. Isn't that the whole point? By all means go back
to C++ if you like to have three lines for each
Ben Finney wrote:
Until we get the code to examine independently, all we have is an
anecdote. Thus the comparison to UFO sightings.
Except UFO sightings comprise a large body of data containing a vast number
of known false reports and others that appear to be in the same vein with
no verified
Ben Finney wrote:
Until we get the code to examine independently, all we have is an
anecdote. Thus the comparison to UFO sightings.
Except UFO sightings comprise a large body of data containing a vast number
of known false reports and others that appear to be in the same vein with
no verified
John,
Your hilarious... I mean it, and as a compliment.
But seriously, I think your taking a discussion about trends and
twisting them to be about absolutes. Maybe others are too.
But, forgive the cheesy paraphrasing, but the solution should be as
simple as possible, and no simpler.
There is
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
corroborations. It's like a guy saying he saw a cloud that looks like
a python. The cloud's gone now, but other people can watch other
clouds and report what they see.
Good comparison, now does the cloud gazing make them better programmers?
--
John
According to your silly rule the shortest book on a subject would be the
best. Now why is that false?
No, according to the rule, the shorter of two books **containing the
same information** would be best.
I don't think I'm a zealot. The original quote said all else equal.
Certainly legible
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
Your hilarious...
If you learn to quote, you don't need to address me. But it's beyond you I
understand, so bye.
--
John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
personal page:
Michael Tobis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to your silly rule the shortest book on a subject would be
the best. Now why is that false?
No, according to the rule, the shorter of two books **containing the
same information** would be best.
What is the same information?
In fact,
Michael Tobis wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok I'm going to end with a flamebait - but I would posit, ALL OTHER
THINGS BEING EQUAL - that a smaller number of characters and lines in
code is more maintainable than larger number of characters and lines in
the
Terry Hancock wrote:
But the real point is that no one here can make
any reasonably objective assessment of whether your data is
meaningful unless you post examples. That's what creates the
hostility, I think.
Fair enough. But see my other posts on why I'm not interested in objective
Hmm, and I thought it was respectful to actually address someone you
are talking to. Must every statement be a reaction to a quotable
comment? In any case, I realize I was completley wrong. Please allow
me to retract my statement.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, and I thought it was respectful to actually address someone you
are talking to.
On Usenet, it's respectful to all readers if you give a short quoted
passage from the message you're responding to, so we can follow the
discussion with context.
As a coder, I wouldn't normally use the two different conventions. you
show in your examples. So it does little to tell us about the
importance or lack there of line count.
Let me state clearly - to use line count , in absence of other
considerations, IS meaningless.
But if a 1 person, using 1
Thanks Ben,
I actually don't spend a whole lot of time on newsgroups. I don't use
my gmail account and use the groups thru the web interface. If that
quoting mechanism is available on the web interface and I haven't found
it - I'd love to know how to use it. Also i use the threaded view on
the
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Hancock wrote:
But the real point is that no one here can make
any reasonably objective assessment of whether your data is
meaningful unless you post examples. That's what creates the
hostility, I think.
Fair enough. But see my other posts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quoting mechanism is available on the web interface and I haven't found
it - I'd love to know how to use it.
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=14213
Also i use the threaded view on
the web client, so I have little trouble
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if a 1 person, using 1 language, with the same set of tools withing
a 3 month period implements the same algo without bugs - I'll bet you
the shorter one was theone written second.
You might lose that bet very often. I see often that additional
Hi Edward
Raw -Blanks -Comments
lines chars lines chars lines chars
mirror.py 16746321324597 1184009
mirror.pl 30958362115647 1844790
Maybe somebody would change
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for
what it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just
please don't turn this into a pissing contest.
Mirco Wahab wrote:
Maybe somebody would change his style
and had a lot of such statements before:
which can be expressed in one
line:
This has a 1:4 line count then.
Or, somebody used identifier like:
and later:
and saved ~40% characters.
You got my point? ;-)
Hey I completely agree
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evaluating my experiences yes, relating your own no.
What would the point be? Most important to me would be: am I happy with
the result? And that rarely has to do with the number of lines of actual
code or the programming language.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair enough, but advocacy isn't at all what I'm after. Anecdotes are fine,
after all what is data but a collection of anecdotes? :)
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--
Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *
It probably says something about your coding style, particularly in
perl. I've found (anecdotally of course) that while perl is potentially
the more economical language, writing *legible* perl takes a lot more
space.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Without any more information I would say the biggest contributor to
this dissimilarity is your experience. Having spent an additional five
years writing code you probably are better now at programming than you
were then. I am fairly confident that if you were to take another crack
at these same
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Edward
Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for what
it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just please
don't turn this into a pissing contest.
I'm in the process of converting
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evaluating my experiences yes, relating your own no.
What would the point be? Most important to me would be: am I happy
with the result? And that rarely has to do with the number of lines
The plural of anecdote is not data.
It's a pithy quote, but it isn't QOTW in my book, simply because it
isn't true in general. Talk to some paleoclimatologists.
There is no way to get uniform measures of ancient climate. What should
we do then? Should we ignore the information we have? Are the
Michael Tobis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
It's a pithy quote, but it isn't QOTW in my book, simply because it
isn't true in general. Talk to some paleoclimatologists.
There is no way to get uniform measures of ancient climate. What
should we do then?
brian d foy wrote:
You have to note that rewriting a program, even in the same language,
tends to make it shorter, too. These things are measures of programmer
skill, not the usefulness or merit of a particular language.
I completely agree. But you have to start somewhere.
Shorter
achates wrote:
It probably says something about your coding style, particularly in
perl. I've found (anecdotally of course) that while perl is potentially
the more economical language, writing *legible* perl takes a lot more
space.
I'm sure it does. My perl (from 5 years ago) may be
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But again, the interesting thing to me isn't what could one do, it's
what are people actually doing in the real world?
In that case: there is probably more Perl out there that makes us cry
compared to Python :-D.
--
John Bokma Freelance
Adam Jones wrote:
Without any more information I would say the biggest contributor to
this dissimilarity is your experience. Having spent an additional five
years writing code you probably are better now at programming than you
were then. I am fairly confident that if you were to take another
Michael Tobis wrote:
Edward also asked if others had similar experiences. If others did, the
assemblage of their opinions would in fact consttitute data. I have no
idea why people are giving him such grief over this request.
Thank you, Michael. It was starting to feel like I'd asked about
Ben Finney wrote:
Those samples can be independently verified by any skilled observer at
another time. This is what distinguishes them from anecdotes, and
breaks your analogy.
Anyone who has my source files can run the same tests. The measures are
repeatable and reliable, even if at the
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
Those samples can be independently verified by any skilled
observer at another time. This is what distinguishes them from
anecdotes, and breaks your analogy.
Anyone who has my source files can run the same tests.
Which we
Ben Finney wrote:
I responded to a post that seemed to claim that anecdotes about events
can be treated as data about events. They can't; that's what I'm
arguing.
And conveniently ignoring the key part of my post. Here it is again for
those who missed it:
Before the days of cheap video,
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
I responded to a post that seemed to claim that anecdotes about events
can be treated as data about events. They can't; that's what I'm
arguing.
And conveniently ignoring the key part of my post. Here it is again for
those
This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for what
it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just please
don't turn this into a pissing contest.
I'm in the process of converting some old perl programs to python. These
programs use some network code and
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for
what it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just
please don't turn this into a pissing contest.
Without seeing the actual code this is quite meaningless.
--
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for
what it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just
please don't turn this into a pissing contest.
Without seeing the actual code this is
Edward Elliott wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
Edward Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. Take it for
what it's worth. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives, just
please don't turn this into a pissing contest.
Without seeing the
Edward Elliott wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
Without seeing the actual code this is quite meaningless.
Evaluating my experiences yes, relating your own no.
Well, quality of code is directly related to its author. Without knowing
the author personally, or at least seeing the code, your anecdote
Charles DeRykus wrote:
This subject thread may be of great interest but I think an language
advocacy mailing list would be a better forum.
Fair enough, but advocacy isn't at all what I'm after. Anecdotes are fine,
after all what is data but a collection of anecdotes? :) Seriously,
Ala Qumsieh wrote:
Btw, do you include space chars that go toward indentating Python code
in your count? If not, you should since they are required. Not so for
Perl.
All chars are counted on lines which are counted. The perl and python
versions use the same amount and type of indentation,
83 matches
Mail list logo
