Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Peter Seibel]

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