On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:34:52AM +0100, David Tweed wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Charlie Kester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Christoph Lohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-07 23:48:20 +0200]: > > With respect, focusing on lines of code is the wrong perspective. > > It doesn't matter if you see that number as an achievement or as > > an expense. > > > > If you make reducing LOC your primary goal, you end up writing > > Python or Ruby. > > > > I want: > > > > - small executables - simple, clean user interfaces (do one thing and do it > > well) - good performance > > > > When measuring smallness, it's important to include any shared > > libraries or runtime environments in the calculation. Many Python > > programs are only superficially small. (You could say the same > > thing about a bash script in comparison to a Bourne shell script.) > > My personal opinion has always been that focusing heavily on reducing > the number of lines of code is almost as misguided as maximising the > number of lines you produce. Taken beyond the sensible level of > removing functionality that doesn't belong at the level of your > application, you end up creating code that embodies so many _hidden_ > assumptions and dependencies on how other parts are implemented that > it's very difficult to modify. > > To my mind, a well designed application should have exactly the > functionality that is best implemented at its level, no more and > equally importantly no less. If that requires more lines of code then > that's a price worth paying.
I agree, but still the SLOC is a related indicator if the functionality has been implemented in a decent way at its level. If a file editor (vim) consists of >200.000 SLOC, something is wrong obviously. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
