3 ms·
Smalltalk is very efficient according to function point analysis that is how many rows of code you need to produce code. http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/dmz/cs
by acd 9y ago
Smalltalk is very efficient according to function point analysis that is how many rows of code you need to produce code.
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/dmz/cs697/langtbl.htm http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/dmz/cs697/langtbl.htm
- hota_mazi 9y agoThis study is more than twenty years old. Smalltalk would score very low compared to today's languages. Function points are a pretty useless metric anyway.
- coldtea 9y ago>Smalltalk would score very low compared to today's languages. Citation needed. Why would it "score very low compared to today's languages"? At best "today's languages" caught up with some things Smalltalk offered, but they still don't have the base model so succint and flexible, so it's just piles of sugar on top of algol.
- concede_pluto 9y agoI mistrust a list that rates C++ as more concise than Common Lisp (in which one can create domain-specific languages), and Visual C++ as somehow 50% more concise than both.