On 9/20/07, Jeremy O'Brien <obrien654j_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> "there's no stupid limit on its source size, we have features we want."
>
> That seems rather combative! Are you calling Anselm stupid?
I wouldn't have used the word "stupid", but I personally think
excessively concentrating on SLOC tends to lead to more contorted,
difficult to read/modify code than making the goal that "programs have
a well-defined purpose with no more AND NO LESS features than are
relevant for this purpose". I particularly thinks it's a mistake to
remove well-thought out, useful features because "it removes lines of
code".
-- cheers, dave tweed__________________________ david.tweed_AT_gmail.com Rm 124, School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading. "we had no idea that when we added templates we were adding a Turing- complete compile-time language." -- C++ standardisation committeeReceived on Thu Sep 20 2007 - 16:06:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:53:49 UTC