Blah-Blah List (and why line counts are a bad metric)

[Ben Giddings]

So, I did a search for Ruby on Rails today, and my interest was piqued
by the third result. It said "Move over Ruby on Rails, Java can be
concise too"

http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=32723

That page makes the claim "After solving all the problems and adding a
number of missing features, the entire application is only 300 lines
longer (a 50% increase) and the server tier took not more than 2 days
to write."

I don't know where to find the Ta-Da list source code, but I found some
source for Bla-Bla List. I thought you people might get a chuckle
about the "concise" Java code, and the meaninglessness of line number
counts:

https://svn.rifers.org/blablalist/trunk/src/java/blablalist/dao/
Account.java

Ben

 

[Hal Fulton]

So, I did a search for Ruby on Rails today, and my interest was piqued
by the third result. It said "Move over Ruby on Rails, Java can be
concise too"

http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=32723

That page makes the claim "After solving all the problems and adding a
number of missing features, the entire application is only 300 lines
longer (a 50% increase) and the server tier took not more than 2 days
to write."

I don't know where to find the Ta-Da list source code, but I found some
source for Bla-Bla List. I thought you people might get a chuckle
about the "concise" Java code, and the meaninglessness of line number
counts:

https://svn.rifers.org/blablalist/trunk/src/java/blablalist/dao/
Account.java

A chuckle? Call it a belly laugh followed by a small tear in the
corner of one eye...

I don't think Rails has anything to fear from... "Jails," shall we
call it? Java in Jails? (Don't drop the creamer!)

Besides which each one of those files has to be compiled anytime
anything changes. Gotta love an interpreted language that *has* to
be compiled first...


Hal

 

[James Britt]

So, I did a search for Ruby on Rails today, and my interest was piqued
by the third result. It said "Move over Ruby on Rails, Java can be
concise too"

http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=32723

That page makes the claim "After solving all the problems and adding a
number of missing features, the entire application is only 300 lines
longer (a 50% increase) and the server tier took not more than 2 days
to write."

I don't know where to find the Ta-Da list source code, but I found some
source for Bla-Bla List. I thought you people might get a chuckle
about the "concise" Java code, and the meaninglessness of line number
counts:

I have a (probably unrealistic) hope that the Rails/Java sniping can be
kept to the assorted blogs; threads here consisting largely of "My
toolkit can beat up your toolkit" are, at best, only preaching to the choir.


James

 

[Hal Fulton]

I have a (probably unrealistic) hope that the Rails/Java sniping can be
kept to the assorted blogs; threads here consisting largely of "My
toolkit can beat up your toolkit" are, at best, only preaching to the
choir.

It doesn't bother me greatly as long as it's not cross-posted.

Hal

 

[Nikolai Weibull]

* Ben Giddings (Mar 30, 2005 10:30):

https://svn.rifers.org/blablalist/trunk/src/java/blablalist/dao/

Not to mention all the xml-files that seem to litter this project tree.

What is worse, there's a whole lot of Flash going on in that
application, which I bet hasn't been included in the line-count. It
also means that the actual interface isn't as accessible as it could be.

Why the hell do people still use Flash?,
nikolai

 

[Stephen Kellett]

https://svn.rifers.org/blablalist/trunk/src/java/blablalist/dao/
Account.java

I got a security warning visiting this site. Using Firefox 1.0 on W2K.
Didn't continue to visit the site.

Stephen

 

[Navindra Umanee]

I got a security warning visiting this site. Using Firefox 1.0 on W2K.
Didn't continue to visit the site.

Firefox is being a bit stupid. It's just a Java source file, not even
compiled and certainly not executable.

Firefox is just getting confused by the SSL stuff which is totally
pointless in this context.

Cheers,
Navin.

 

[Peter Reilly]

Firefox is being a bit stupid. It's just a Java source file, not even
compiled and certainly not executable.

Firefox is just getting confused by the SSL stuff which is totally
pointless in this context.

The site is an https site with an unthrusted certifiate, which firefox
kindly informs
you about.

Peter

 

[Michael Campbell]

Want a REAL laugh? look here:

http://www.stunnix.com/prod/po/overview.shtml

I thought it was an April Fool's joke, but dunno . . .

Very much perl code can be considered obfuscated by running it through
"cat", no? ;-)

 

[Adrian Howard]

"Hal Fulton"wrote ...
I thought you people might get a chuckle

Stunnix has an.... erm... interesting attitude to the world. His
Perl-obfus product was violently shredded on perlmonks [1], and he
tried to sell his patches to OpenOffice a couple of years ago [2] with
little success.

Odd chap.

Cheers,

Adrian

[1] http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=243011
[2]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/03/open_source_company_wants_cash/

PS Good grief! Somebody seems to have actually wasted the time to write
bots to vote down the anti-Stunnix posts on perlmonks! As I said... odd
chap.

 

[Adrian Howard]

On 1 Apr 2005, at 16:20, Adrian Howard wrote:
[snip]

PS Good grief! Somebody seems to have actually wasted the time to
write bots to vote down the anti-Stunnix posts on perlmonks! As I
said... odd chap.

Or, alternatively, I could have fallen for the April Fool joke running
on perlmonks that inverts the votes on nodes.

Oops.

Apologies to Stunnix

Adrian