• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing


  • Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing
  • From: Marco Scheurer <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:47:36 +0200

On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 11:45 PM, Nadyne Mielke wrote:

Marco Scheurer <email@hidden> wrote:

[snip]

One such research was made in 1996. See for instance
http://www.theadvisors.com/langcomparison.htm
According to this table, coding in Objective C is twice as productive
as coding in C++.

I seriously question the validity of that work. They're using function
points, which is a software metrics methodology developed for
functional programming languages. Function points don't work well for
functional programming languages, but are even worse for any
object-oriented language.

I think that Tom Gilb said "anything can be measured in a way that is better than not measuring it at all". This is engineering, not science, and "back of the envelope", "rule of thumb" and "seat of the pants" estimates are useful to us.

I agree with you that function points are not ideal, but they are better than nothing. Don't be abused by the term "function" in function point: this does not imply a functional programming language (and btw I think you are confusing functional such as LISP and procedural such as COBOL). This is a measure of the functionality offered by the program: at the end of the road you've got to write a certain amount of lines of code to provide a given function. So there's nothing against using function points for software built with OO languages: it is not an internal metric like the number of procedure or the cyclomatic complexity.

A more valid objection about this table is the focus on languages, when the development environment, class libraries, and so on are also important. So of course it does not say that "having unlimited undo/redo in your app is done twice as fast in Cocoa as in Visual C++".

Marco Scheurer
Sen:te, Lausanne, Switzerland http://www.sente.ch
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing
      • From: Nadyne Mielke <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (From: Nadyne Mielke <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: EOF undead?
  • Next by Date: Re: Suggesting an initial filename with document-based app?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing
  • Next by thread: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread