3 ms·
> I'm not sure brevity is a benchmark for a good language either. It's the only benchmark that we have any kind of analysis for (https://www.researchgate.net/p
by Supermancho 7y ago
> I'm not sure brevity is a benchmark for a good language either.
It's the only benchmark that we have any kind of analysis for (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3188171_The_Confounding_Effect_of_Class_Size_on_the_Validity_of_Object-Oriented_Metrics https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3188171_The_Confoun...), which correlates to less defects and less time per feature. Less code is better. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I think it's a valid criticism. YMMV
- shakna 7y agoI agree with less code, but the tokens themselves needing to be shorter, not so much - so long as they remain easily readable.
- kazinator 7y ago> When we controlled for class size all of the effects disappeared, providing compelling evidence for a confounding effect of class size Holy crap; are they really saying that all the various correlations seen between numerous software metrics and fault proneness are actually the effect of nothing but raw size? That's so intuitive. Because in our daily experience, almost all reasonable approaches to to various aspects of program organization actually work fine in programs of a size that one programmer can comfortably fully understand and maintain. Even for any technique reviled as "bad" and discouraged in coding standards, there are counterexamples of it working fine. Those counterexamples are in the context of small programs, so we are told, "just wait, that approach will burn you in a big program". But it looks like what will burn you is just the size of that big program, no matter what techniques you wield, whether blessed or not. That little paper you pointed to there (thank you) looks pretty darn important.