Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme
Peter Seibel
peter at javamonkey.com
Wed Oct 8 16:37:47 EDT 2003
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
--
Peter Seibel peter at javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
More information about the Python-list
mailing list