CodeMonkey2000; a relatively useless indicator for scientific purposes.
Inform ... doesn't say that it might be part of the fiction. For Lua, who knows, the comments may start with "this is good @#$%"
Cheers
Computer Science Canada A useless but not humourless indicator of language crappiness |
| Author: | btiffin [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | A useless but not humourless indicator of language crappiness |
http://cursecode.appspot.com/ And, having been writing the info docs for OpenCOBOL, I can't say I disagree with Texinfo's position in the list. Cheers |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:A useless but not humourless indicator of language crappiness |
Rebol: 1 in 666.667 Is any more proof needed that the language is evil? |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:A useless but not humourless indicator of language crappiness |
I also note that O'Caml, Scheme, Haskell, Smalltalk and a few other languages I've evangelized appear to have fairly low ratios. Nifty. |
|
| Author: | CodeMonkey2000 [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:A useless but not humourless indicator of language crappiness |
Lua: 154, one of the lowest on the list. Lua is a very neat and pretty language. |
|
| Author: | btiffin [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:A useless but not humourless indicator of language crappiness |
CodeMonkey2000; a relatively useless indicator for scientific purposes. Inform ... doesn't say that it might be part of the fiction. For Lua, who knows, the comments may start with "this is good @#$%"
Cheers |
|
| Author: | md [ Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:A useless but not humourless indicator of language crappiness |
Hmm, perl has a shockingly high number of occurances. Perhaps I should learn Ada? I didn't see anything that beat 1:7000  |
|