Bryan, at the end of the paper there is a reference to:
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~prechelt/documents/jccpp_tr.pdf In chapter 5.6 on page 19 of this publication you can find Figure 10, Displaying program length in comparison. I read the graphics (looking at the yellow boxes) that most of the python programs are quite as small as the smallest 60% of perl programs; where "small" ist LOC. All progs in that study should have dealt with the same problem, so FP(perl)=FP(Python), and you should be correct with LOC/FP(Python) <= LOC/FP(perl) Please also see that they were evaluating Python 1.5.2, which missed some very "density improving features" as there are esp. list comprehenstions. Harald -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
