Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme
Pascal Costanza
costanza at web.de
Wed Oct 8 16:33:00 EDT 2003
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> 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???
Apart from that, what does the author mean by "Lisp"? Is it Common Lisp
or some other Lisp dialect? Scheme?
According to this table, Modula-2 and Lisp are in the same league - I
have used both languages, and this just doesn't align with my experience.
Furthermore, CLOS can be regarded as a superset of Smalltalk. How can it
be that Smalltalk is more than three times better than Lisp? Even if you
take Scheme that doesn't come with an object system out of the box, you
can usually add one that is at least as powerful as Smalltalk. Or did
they add the LOC of infrastructure libraries to their results?
Pascal
More information about the Python-list
mailing list