Re: [dwm] dijkstra quote

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:34:52AM +0100, David Tweed wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Charlie Kester <corky1951_AT_comcast.net> wrote:
> > * Christoph Lohmann <20h_AT_r-36.net> [2008-05-07 23:48:20 +0200]:
> > With respect, focusing on lines of code is the wrong perspective.
> > It doesn't matter if you see that number as an achievement or as
> > an expense.
> >
> > If you make reducing LOC your primary goal, you end up writing
> > Python or Ruby.
> >
> > I want:
> >
> > - small executables - simple, clean user interfaces (do one thing and do it
> > well) - good performance
> >
> > When measuring smallness, it's important to include any shared
> > libraries or runtime environments in the calculation. Many Python
> > programs are only superficially small. (You could say the same
> > thing about a bash script in comparison to a Bourne shell script.)
>
> My personal opinion has always been that focusing heavily on reducing
> the number of lines of code is almost as misguided as maximising the
> number of lines you produce. Taken beyond the sensible level of
> removing functionality that doesn't belong at the level of your
> application, you end up creating code that embodies so many _hidden_
> assumptions and dependencies on how other parts are implemented that
> it's very difficult to modify.
>
> To my mind, a well designed application should have exactly the
> functionality that is best implemented at its level, no more and
> equally importantly no less. If that requires more lines of code then
> that's a price worth paying.

I agree, but still the SLOC is a related indicator if the
functionality has been implemented in a decent way at its level.
If a file editor (vim) consists of >200.000 SLOC, something is
wrong obviously.

Kind regards,

-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361