From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5a97e6705e234408
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-25 16:08:02 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!wlbr!news
From: default <joel_seidman.NOESPAME@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Expected bytes per sloc (semicolons) performance
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Accept-Language: en
X-Complaints-To: Email news@wlbr.to.gd-es.com if this posting is inappropriate
Sender: news@wlbr.to.gd-es.com (System Administrator)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Dis
Message-ID: <3BB10C7C.4148BC17@yahoo.com>
References: <8f23da36.0109181403.52128d70@posting.google.com>
 <_hRp7.7630$ot.1153235@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>
 <8f23da36.0109201115.2f708535@posting.google.com>
 <uadzobq0v.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <matsw-2109011730340001@lsb-catv-2-p007.vtxnet.ch>
 <3BAB8028.18CCD530@yahoo.com> <ug09c4j3i.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: wlbr.to.gd-es.com 1001458815 757 (None) [156.23.129.143]
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: seidmanj01.mtv.gsc.gte.com
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 23:00:12 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13371
Date: 2001-09-25T23:00:12+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> default <joel_seidman.NOESPAME@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > Mats Weber wrote:
> > >
> > > >Rules about n bytes per sloc are just too processor, compiler, and
> > > >coding style dependent to be useful.
> > >
> > > I would put a big emphasis on coding style here. If you use a lot of
> > > generics, the code will be generated once for each instance in most
> > > implementations.
> >
> > I agree there is a relation between coding style and bytes/sloc.
> >
> > But I don't understand the specific denigration of generics, which I've
> > heard occasionally. It seems to me the alternative to generics is
> > nearly-duplicate packages and procedures, usually created by brute-force
> > cut-and-paste in a text editor. You end up with the same amount of
> > object code, but with the disadvantage that it is harder to maintain
> > than if you had used generics.
> >
> > Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
> 
> I didn't get a "denigration of generics" from this. Mats is merely
> pointing out that a style that uses generics will have a _much_ higher
> number for bytes/sloc than a style that doesn't. This is neither bad
> nor good; it's just a fact. It does argue that "bytes/sloc" is not a
> useful measure.

OK, Stephe, I may have misread the intention. I've heard it stated as a
complaint in the past, so I jumped to a conclusion. My apologies to
Mats. 
-- Joel