3 ms·
It's not that C programs are broken; it's that if you spend six hours writing C code your code will either do less, or be more broken, than what you would have
by d0mine 15y ago
It's not that C programs are broken; it's that if you spend six hours writing C code your code will either do less, or be more broken, than what you would have produced had you spent those six hours writing, e.g., Perl or Javascript or Lisp instead. </quote>
Python doesn't produce smaller programs compared to C http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~migod/846/2011-Winter/projects/Simon-LanguageChoiceVCS-report.pdf http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~migod/846/2011-Winter/projects/Simo...
- bermanoid 15y agoThat article doesn't debunk the claim very effectively, IMO: of Bazaar, Git, Mercurial, SVN, and CVS, Python-dominated Mercurial is the smallest by a healthy margin (~50k SLoC), whereas the more C heavy CVS, Git, and SVN weigh in at ~2x, 5x, and 8x that amount. Sure, we throw in the almost 100%-Python Bazaar, at 200k, which CVS beats. But CVS vs. any of these other source control systems is not really a fair comparison, IMO, and it's still blown out of the water by Mercurial. I'm not saying that this proves that Python code is smaller (comparing source control systems to each other is completely unfair, since they differ so much in feature set, platform target, and code quality), but it certainly does not disprove it.