关于作为衡量编程语言能力的代码密度的文章 [英] Article about code density as a measure of programming language power

问题描述

我记得我读过一篇文章，上面写着类似的东西

I remember reading an article saying something like

"引入的bug数量随不同的编程语言变化不大，但很大程度上取决于SLOC(源代码行数).因此，最好使用能够以较小的SLOC实现相同功能的编程语言在稳定性方面."

"The number of bugs introduced doesn't vary much with different programming languages, but it depends pretty much on SLOC (source lines of code). So, using the programming language that can implement the same functions with smaller SLOC is preferable in terms of stability."

作者想强调使用函数式编程的优势，因为通常可以使用较少数量的 LOC 进行编程.我记得作者引用了一篇关于编程语言选择与错误数量无关的研究论文.

The author wanted to stress the advantages of using Functional Programming, as normally one can program with a smaller number of LOC. I remember the author cited a research paper about the irrelevance of choice of programming language and the number of bugs.

有谁知道研究论文或文章吗?

Is there anyone who knows the research paper or the article?

推荐答案

Paul Graham 在他的文章 简洁就是力量.他引用了一份爱立信的报告，这可能是你记得的那篇论文?

Paul Graham wrote something very like this in his essay Succinctness is Power. He quotes a report from Ericsson, which may be the paper you remember?

来自该领域的报告，尽管它们肯定不如科学"报告精确.研究，可能更有意义.例如，爱立信的 Ulf Wiger 做了一项研究，得出的结论是 Erlang 比 C++ 简洁 4-10 倍，并且在以下方面开发软件的速度也更快:

Reports from the field, though they will necessarily be less precise than "scientific" studies, are likely to be more meaningful. For example, Ulf Wiger of Ericsson did a study that concluded that Erlang was 4-10x more succinct than C++, and proportionately faster to develop software in:

爱立信内部开发项目之间的比较表明，生产线/小时的生产率相似，包括软件开发的所有阶段，而与使用的语言(Erlang、PLEX、C、C++ 或 Java)无关.不同语言的区别就变成了源代码量.

Comparisons between Ericsson-internal development projects indicate similar line/hour productivity, including all phases of software development, rather independently of which language (Erlang, PLEX, C, C++, or Java) was used. What differentiates the different languages then becomes source code volume.

这篇关于关于作为衡量编程语言能力的代码密度的文章的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！