4 ms·
That's probably a better metric, but I still think it's making a statement about some causal relationship between size and quality, which I think is complete bu
by gdp 17y ago
That's probably a better metric, but I still think it's making a statement about some causal relationship between size and quality, which I think is complete bunk.
I can solve a problem in 1 line of buggy code. You have to write 1000 lines, but it is mathematically certain that yours works. Whose is the better implementation? Mine might be O(n^n) in the worst case, while yours is O(1).
See, I'm talking about specific programs, but these sorts of comparisons extend fairly naturally to programming languages too.
- scott_s 17y agoClearly, the 1000 lines of mathematically proved correct code that is also faster is better. But that's a contrived example. In general, less lines means less bugs. That you can contrive counter-examples does not invalidate the metric for use in the normal cases.