3 ms·
Could you elaborate on the point where my math is off? You mentioned a range from 3-10x between Scala and Java, and we have a 4x multiplier with your code (260
by Uchikoma 15y ago
Could you elaborate on the point where my math is off?
You mentioned a range from 3-10x between Scala and Java, and we have a 4x multiplier with your code (260 LOC Clojure vs. 1000 LOC Scala). This would result in a 12 - 40x range which I quoted in my comment.
I also find it a little discomforting that "Scala is 3-4x more concise than Java in general" becomes "my experience over the last few years suggests that Scala code can be anything from 2-3x" in a matter of minutes.
You're sure about your numbers? Not wanting to be offensive, but it sounds a little like you pull them out of thin air.
- seancorfield 15y agoI think you're striving for absolutes where only relatives exist. You're right that I said 3-4x in one place and 2-3x in another. Sorry. It's a gut feeling. Is it 2x, 3x, 4x? One of those. Any of those depending on the code. Somewhere in the middle. It's going to depend on the specific code. You can't reasonably suggest that language X is always Nx more concise than language Y, surely? So, somewhere in that space, Scala is a substantially more concise than Java (will you allow "substantially"?) and Clojure seems to be substantially more concise than Scala. Is that suitably vague for you? :)
- Uchikoma 15y agoA little bit disappointed about the down votes, I'd hope we as an industry take numbers not so lightly and find "Is it 2x, 3x, 4x? One of those." no longer comfy. I'd also hope we strive more towards "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and more science than folklore.