Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme
Pascal Bourguignon
spam at thalassa.informatimago.com
Wed Oct 8 16:35:25 EDT 2003
"Andrew Dalke" <adalke at mindspring.com> writes:
> And here's Table 31-2
Sorted by statement per function point:
Statements per
Language Level Function Point
-------- ----- --------------
spreadsheets ~50 6
Smalltalk (80 & V) 15 20
AWK 15 25
Perl 15 25
SAS, SPSS, etc. 10 30
Visual Basic 3 10 30
Paradox 9 35
dBase IV 9 35
Focus 8 40
Oracle 8 40
Sybase 8 40
C++ 6.5 50
Quick Basic 3 5.5 60
Lisp 5 65
Ada 83 4.5 70
Modula 2 4 80
Cobol (ANSI 85) 3.5 90
Pascal 3.5 90
GW Basic 3.25 100
Fortran 77 3 110
C 2.5 125
Macro assembler 1.5 215
Assembler 1 320
> Source: Adapted from data in 'Programming Languages
> Table' (Jones 1995a)
>
>
> I'll use Perl as a proxy for Python; given that that was pre-OO
> Perl I think it's reasonable that that sets a minimum level for
> Python. Compare the Lisp and Perl numbers
>
> Lisp 5 65
> Perl 15 25
>
> and the differences in "statements per function point" (which isn't
> quite "LOC per function point") is striking. It suggests that
> Python is more than twice as concise as Lisp, so if LOC is
> used as the estimate for implementation time then it's a strong
> recommendation to use Python instead of Lisp because it
> will take less time to get the same thing done. And I do believe
> Lisp had macros back in the mid-1990s.
Some differences in this table look suspect to me. Perhaps they did
not take into account other important factors, such as the use of
libraries.
For example, when I write awk code, I really don't feel like I'm
programming in a higher level languange than LISP... (and I won't
mention perl).
Also, the ordering of Fortran vs. C fell strange (given the libraries
I use in C and the fact that I don't use Fortran).
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list