3 ms·

I'm not from the US, so don't really know why there is so much focus on the website rather than the healthcare itself in the US news. But now I'm wondering, wha

I'm not from the US, so don't really know why there is so much focus on the website rather than the healthcare itself in the US news. But now I'm wondering, what language is healthcare.gov written in and did they put every keyword on a new line?

downandout 13y ago
The focus on the failure of the website is actually mainly being pushed by Democrats and liberal US media organizations. The reality is that enrollment figures have been staggeringly low, and the program at this time appears to be headed to fall far short of the 7 million enrollees it needs to be financially viable. They can choose to either have stories about how Americans appear to be roundly rejecting the program itself, or they can talk about website failures. This being Obama's signature piece of legislation, Democrats and most of the left-leaning media have chosen to focus on the website issues while praying that Americans somehow come around and start signing up. There was actually a recent Associated Press article saying that the low enrollment numbers "only show the vast number of Americans eagerly waiting to sign up". Other, similar nonsense has been published extensively by left-leaning media hoping to spur public interest in signing up. As for the language/line count, I don't know what language it is but this 500 million number had to have been picked out of thin air. Perhaps they counted the number of lines of actual code and multiplied it by the number of servers it is running on.
MetaCosm 13y ago
I think that number includes the LOC of every system they interact with, and every library they use... I recall reading there were over 850 "major" libraries used and it interacted with hundreds of other systems which had to be customized (state and local). Just adding in boost and using like 1 function from it adds 25M lines of "code" (dumbly counted including comments and such).
sugerman 13y ago
The line count (wildly inaccurate or not) for "healthcare.gov" includes all of the actual insurance exchanges and related infrastructure as well, not just the actual website healthcare.gov. They should have labelled it differently.

downandout 13y ago

The focus on the failure of the website is actually mainly being pushed by Democrats and liberal US media organizations. The reality is that enrollment figures have been staggeringly low, and the program at this time appears to be headed to fall far short of the 7 million enrollees it needs to be financially viable. They can choose to either have stories about how Americans appear to be roundly rejecting the program itself, or they can talk about website failures. This being Obama's signature piece of legislation, Democrats and most of the left-leaning media have chosen to focus on the website issues while praying that Americans somehow come around and start signing up. There was actually a recent Associated Press article saying that the low enrollment numbers "only show the vast number of Americans eagerly waiting to sign up". Other, similar nonsense has been published extensively by left-leaning media hoping to spur public interest in signing up. As for the language/line count, I don't know what language it is but this 500 million number had to have been picked out of thin air. Perhaps they counted the number of lines of actual code and multiplied it by the number of servers it is running on.

MetaCosm 13y ago

I think that number includes the LOC of every system they interact with, and every library they use... I recall reading there were over 850 "major" libraries used and it interacted with hundreds of other systems which had to be customized (state and local). Just adding in boost and using like 1 function from it adds 25M lines of "code" (dumbly counted including comments and such).

sugerman 13y ago

The line count (wildly inaccurate or not) for "healthcare.gov" includes all of the actual insurance exchanges and related infrastructure as well, not just the actual website healthcare.gov. They should have labelled it differently.