3 ms·
> I think the big big result from this study is: "Python: half the size !". > A dynamic language like Python is better here, 2x better. I was surprised by how
by dmurray 7y ago
> I think the big big result from this study is: "Python: half the size !".
> A dynamic language like Python is better here, 2x better.
I was surprised by how small the LOC benefit was from using the dynamic languages. As someone who typically reaches for Python, I'd use a statically typed language (Go or Java, most likely) much more often if I expected only twice as many lines of code. In practice I feel the same project takes 3-10 times as many LOC and that pushes it to where it is more difficult to maintain and understand.
- mpoteat 7y agoThe Python developer also added a lot of extra features. A MVP might be half again the size.
- trishume 7y agoNote my half the size estimate was after estimating the amount of code dedicated to extra features. The raw line count is only 0.7x the size of our non-test line count. Although my estimate of how many lines it would have taken without the extra features has very wide error bars.
- galaxyLogic 7y agoI have the same experience with Java. But I would have expected languages that have type-inference like Haskell, Scala and OCaml to do much better. But maybe their advanced features in fact make programs written in them harder to understand, which slows down development. Don't know.
- tigershark 7y agoI don’t think that you can consider people with 2k locs of experience in Haskell highly competent in that language.