Can we measure complexity of the expressed functions in the Specs , besides the complexity in user understanding of the same, as a function here.
Does that also come into the 30% that you mention here.. jd On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:37 AM, JodaStephen <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: > Excellentt work. I believe that the grammer size comparison is a much > more reasonable than spec pages. I'd also say that a reduction in > grammer size of 30% intuitively sounds about right. > > More broadly, I would argue that there is a general acceptance that > any language beyond Java will not have exposed primitives, arrays or > checked exceptions, but will add other features like closures. Clearly > this will result in some aspects where the grammer shrinks and some > where it grows. > > It will be interesting to compare the grammer sizes of other "beyond > Java" languages such as Groovy and Fantom. Of course grammer still > only tells a small part of the story... > > Stephen > > > On Aug 6, 8:29 pm, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ah-hah! > > > > both specifications contain a grammar, so I counted em' :) > > > > Java desribes it's grammar thusly: > > > > "The grammar presented piecemeal in the preceding chapters is much better > > for exposition, but it is not well suited as a basis for a parser. The > > grammar presented > > in this chapter is the basis for the reference implementation. Note that > it > > is > > not an LL(1) grammar, though in many cases it minimizes the necessary > look > > ahead." > > > > and for Scala, it's simply: > > > > "The lexical syntax of Scala is given by the following grammar in EBNF > > form." > > > > Ominous, to be sure, but not exactly objective. The actual sizes, on the > > other hand... > > > > - Java: 368 lines over 12 pages > > - Scala: 257 lines over 6 pages (Scala uses a smaller font) > > > > The Scala spec is 111 lines shorter, a reduction of roughly 30% > > > > So I could, in one sense, claim that Scala is 30% simpler than Java. > > I just don't know if it's a particularly useful sense :) > > > > On 6 August 2010 14:20, jitesh dundas <jbdun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: jitesh dundas <jbdun...@gmail.com> > > > Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 18:44:44 +0530 > > > Subject: Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Scala and Java spec size > > > To: Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> > > > > > I never meant the > > > size of the specifications,rather the type (& even readibility of the > > > same.) > > > > > A specific fruit is present at east corner of the basket. > > > The user wants that fruit.The tutorial tells him how that can be > > > done(where to get this fruit & how) > > > specs tells everything & not the solution. > > > > > regards, > > > jd > > > > > On 8/6/10, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm under no delusion here that the size of the specification > document > > > > proves anything. > > > > > > However... If one is to OBJECTIVELY decide which of two programming > > > > languages is inherently more complicated, then something must be > > > measured. > > > > Going on a sense of "well, X *feels* more complicated to me" may > well > > > have > > > > personal value, but it carries very little authority when attempting > to > > > > persuade others of your viewpoint. > > > > > > Measuring spec size is a very flawed methodology here (it's not the > size > > > > that counts...), but at least it IS a methodology, and it involves > > > something > > > > that can be impartially measured. And, as a methodology, it can be > > > improved > > > > upon. > > > > > > As previously stated, I believe that measuring the size of some > formal > > > > grammar would be far more revealing. > > > > And accurate :) > > > > > > On 6 August 2010 11:38, jitesh dundas <jbdun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Very honestly, I found that reading specs was more about > understanding. > > > >> Specs are complicated & rather difficult to understand. Moreover, > > > >> would you like to look into a basket of mixed fruits everywhere when > > > >> you could look at just a location of the basket. > > > >> Tutorials help you with the latter & that is what novice people > want.. > > > >> Specs reading is for experts & interests.. > > > >> I am in the second category as reading specs does boost your > > > efficiency. > > > >> Fabrizio Sir, you might like adding the last point of reading specs > in > > > >> your article (really interesting article on improving efficiency) > > > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Jitesh Dundas > > > > > >> On 8/6/10, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote: > > > > > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > >> > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > >> > On 8/6/10 11:32 , Kevin Wright wrote: > > > >> >> First came bikes, they had very few moving parts, and so were > easy > > > >> >> to understand Then came the infernal combustion engine, with more > > > >> >> moving parts and harder to understand, but definitely faster Then > > > >> >> came the jet turbine, with just a single moving part, and rockets > > > >> >> with none > > > > > >> >> A car is more effective than a bike, but also more complex A > plane > > > >> >> is more effective than a car, but also less complex So simplicity > > > >> >> and effectiveness are not correlated here. > > > > > >> >> Why is it, then, that cars seen as normal and simple; while jets > > > >> >> and rockets are perceived as modern and advanced? As many will > > > >> >> point out, rockets pre-date cars by a long way, the Chinese have > > > >> >> used them in fireworks for a *long* time. And the concepts > > > >> >> underlying a turbine are far simpler than those behind a > > > >> >> four-stroke engine. > > > > > >> >> It's a good metaphor, with plenty of scope for extending. > > > >> >> Consider that modern petrol engines use "injection"... > > > > > >> > Right. In fact I question that a car is more effective than a > bicycle, > > > >> > or a plane more than a car. It depends on the use. But there's > another > > > >> > thing to add: one thing is the implementation complexity (needed > for > > > >> > people that make bikes/cars/languages) and the interface > complexity > > > >> > (needed or people that use bike/cars/languages). I find quite > obvious > > > >> > that driving a car is more complex than riding a bicycle (*). So, > we > > > >> > should also put the specs size in this perspective (in other > words: I > > > >> > suspect that 99% of the people who program in Java never read the > > > >> > specs, but a much simpler tutorial). > > > > > >> > (*) In general. I drive cars, but I'm not able to ride a bicycle > :-((( > > > > > >> > - -- > > > >> > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > > > >> > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > > > >> > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people > > > >> > fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it > > > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > >> > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > > > >> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > > > > >> > iEUEARECAAYFAkxb2hgACgkQeDweFqgUGxccfQCaA8FnQlvuVj5LIosLHmbZAUzM > > > >> > O34Al0605IAMxeyXHEJ2X3VcT1ZfIdg= > > > >> > =3DuM > > > >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > >> > Groups > > > >> > "The Java Posse" group. > > > >> > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > > > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > >> > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > <javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <javaposse%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%25252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > >> . > > > >> > For more options, visit this group at > > > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > > > > Kevin Wright > > > > > > mail/google talk: kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com > > > > wave: kev.lee.wri...@googlewave.com > > > > skype: kev.lee.wright > > > > twitter: @thecoda > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "The Java Posse" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- > > Kevin Wright > > > > mail/google talk: kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com > > wave: kev.lee.wri...@googlewave.com > > skype: kev.lee.wright > > twitter: @thecoda > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
