I don't like this entire opcode thing for evaluating code quality. To me, they are measuring two different things. Opcode quality is an optimization issue. Code quality is a human issue.
Now, I think you can provide a set of tools that measures them both (plus more), but I don't think you measure code quality from the opcodes. Rob (Plus, an opcode isn't really a single atomic operation like you might think. Some opcodes are much heavier than others.) (Also, some opcodes are much lighter than others, such as the NOOP.) On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:51:24 -0500, Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt, > > > > On Nov 21, 2004, at 10:42 PM, Matt Olson wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:16:25 -0500, Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> Some thoughts (in no particular order): > >> 1) Look at statements, not LOC. Otherwise, you start unfairly > >> penalizing people who uncuddle their elses. > > > > I like Kernighan & Pike's metric (in The Practice of Programming): my > > copy's at home, but IIRC they count tokens, rather than statements or > > LOC, when comparing languages. > > Thats why i was thinking we could count perl opcodes. I would think > they would be a great way to tell the actual "size" of a given block of > code. But then again, tokens is not bad either and the PPI project > (http://search.cpan.org/~adamk/PPI/) already has a high quality Perl > Tokenizer available. > > > Incidentally, I strongly recommend TPoP as a "practical software > > engineering" book. > > Been on my Amazon to-buy forever actually. > > Steve > > > > > > > --Matt > > > > _______________________________________________ > > sw-design mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sw-design > > > > _______________________________________________ > sw-design mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sw-design > _______________________________________________ sw-design mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sw-design
