Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Rainer Joswig]

In article <m3r81no4bq.fsf at javamonkey.com>,
 Peter Seibel <peter at javamonkey.com> wrote:

> Rainer Joswig <joswig at lispmachine.de> writes:
> 
> > In article <6CZgb.3273$dn6.860 at newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Andrew Dalke" <adalke at mindspring.com> wrote:
> > 
> > snip
> >  
> > > And here's Table 31-2
> > > 
> > >                            Statements per
> > > Language          Level    Function Point
> > > --------          -----    --------------
> > > Assembler          1           320
> > > Ada 83             4.5          70
> > > AWK               15            25
> > > C                  2.5         125
> > > C++                6.5          50
> > > Cobol (ANSI 85)    3.5          90
> > > dBase IV           9            35
> > > spreadsheets      ~50            6
> > > Focus               8           40
> > > Fortran 77          3          110
> > > GW Basic            3.25       100
> > > Lisp                5           65
> > > Macro assembler     1.5        215
> > > Modula 2            4           80
> > > Oracle              8           40
> > > Paradox             9           35
> > > Pascal              3.5         90
> > > Perl               15           25
> > > Quick Basic 3       5.5         60
> > > SAS, SPSS, etc.    10           30
> > > Smalltalk (80 & V) 15           20
> > > Sybase              8           40
> > > Visual Basic 3     10           30
> > > 
> > >   Source: Adapted from data in 'Programming Languages
> > >                                     Table' (Jones 1995a)
> > 
> > I thought these numbers were bogus. Weren't many of them just
> > guesses with actually zero data or methodology behind them???
> 
> Well, here are some other interesting entries (from the table on p.89
> of Jones's _Applied Software Measurement_):
> 
> Language          Level    Function Point
> --------          -----    --------------
> CLOS               12.0        27
> KSH                12.0        27
> PERL               12.0        27 [it had 27, while the the other table had 25]
> MAKE               15.0        21
> 
> I'm not sure what to make of CLOS being separate from Common Lisp, but
> there it is. But it's sort of moot because by this measure, MAKE is a
> higher level language than either Lisp, Perl, or C++. Personally, I
> think I'll be looking for another metric.
> 
> -Peter

Just look at this:

http://www.theadvisors.com/langcomparison.htm

And read:

  The languages and levels in Table 2 were gathered in four ways.

    * Counting Function Points and Source Code
    * Counting Source Code
    * Inspecting Source Code
    * Researching Languages

and

  Researching Languages

  Research was done by reading descriptions and genealogies
  of languages and making an educated guess as to their levels. KL,
  CLOS, TWAICE, and FASBOL are examples of languages that were
  assigned tentative levels merely from descriptions of the
  language, rather than from actual counts.

Well, I guess CLOS is, ... about, say, hmm, scratching my head, hmm,
let's say 73.

Right?

Let's say it differently, the comparison is a BAD joke.