On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:13:06AM -0700, Walter Bright wrote: > On 8/23/2013 10:23 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >>Like I said, you can still game it. I think some common sense > >>applies, not a literal interpretation. > >You conveniently snipped the rest of my post, which postulates a far > >better metric that's no harder to apply in practice. :) > > You can't compress by visually looking at the code, and LOC is a > unit that people fairly intuitively understand. [...]
What's so difficult about running zip on the code? The fault of LOC is precisely that people "fairly intuitively" understand it. The problem is that no two people's intuitions ever match. So any conclusions drawn from LOC must necessarily be subjective, and really not that much better than saying "I feel like language A is better than language B, because I just like it better, and besides, it has a nicer color (aka better LOC or whatever other subjective metric)." Which is fine, if that's what you're looking for. But let's not pretend it has anything to do with the objective quality of a language. T -- Let's not fight disease by killing the patient. -- Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
