Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Paul Rubin a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilliers at websiteburo.invalid> writes:
>> Take some not-that-trivial projects like Zope/Plone. There are quite a
>> few lines of code involved, and quite a lot of programmers worked on it.
> 
> Zope is about 375 KLOC[1],

I was thinking about Zope2 + Plone, but anyway...

> which I agree is not trivial, but by
> today's standards, it's not all that large. 

How many LOCS would it require if it was written in ADA ?

> Zope also has 275 open
> bugs, 6 of which are critical.

None of which are going to *kill* anyone FWIW. Now how many of these 
bugs would have language-enforced access restriction prevented ?

>[2] The Space Shuttle avionics (written
> in the 1980's!) are 2 MLOC 

of a hi-level dynamic language ? Hm, I guess not.

> in which only 3 errors have been found
> post-release.[3] I think "large software system" today means 100's of
> MLOC.

Given the difference in LOCS count between a low-level static language 
and a hi-level dynamic language for the implementation of a same given 
features set, you cannot just define "large" by the # of LOCS. Not that 
I'm going to compare Zope with Space shuttle's stuff.

>  FWIW, Zope has 20x as much code as Django--is that a good
> thing!?

IMHO, definitively not - and I indeed prefer Django as far as I'm 
concerned. But this is another debate (or is it not ?...)