Way OT: Re. lines of code [was Re: implicit linkage]

[Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>]

Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:14:29PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:48:55PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:02:08 +0100 Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On 12/10/14 18:13, John Hasler wrote:
> > > > > > You have no problem with an 1800 line function?
> > > ...
> > > > > I have a problem with 1800 line functions in general;
> > > ...
> > > > I have no problem with an 1800 line function.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > *What* 1800 line function? The commit URI that was shared was an 1894-line
> > > *file* with a large function definition starting at line 638 and ending at
> > > 1890. That's a 1252-line function.
> > mmm? 1800 vs. 1252 ?
> >
> > 30 years ago, when we still read printouts, 60 lines was considered
> > the ideal max because that's what would fit on a page.
> >
> > Nowadays, we use a screen, but 60 lines is hard on the eyes (9 pt or
> > so), so 40 lines is a good screen-full. But it turns out, with being
> > about to scroll quickly, that 60 lines is still not hard to reach.
> > Moreover, 60 lines seems to be a pretty good average for what an
> > experienced coder can keep in his head.
> LOC is a silly way to measure anyway. You could put all the code on one
> line --- PITA to read, but hey! it's only one line of code! :)

Go Perl.
Go APL.
:-)


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra