Re: Expected bytes per sloc (semicolons) performance

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

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.

It could also be that a particular application domain will lend itself
more to generics than some other domain, independent of programmer
style.

The one reason I have sometimes not used a generic was when the
debugger did not support them. This was true for Alsys Ada, and is
still true for Tartan Ada (both Ada 83). The GNAT debugger supports
generics; I'm not sure of other current compilers.

-- 
-- Stephe