From: davef@tsoft-inc.com
On 4/14/2025 8:45 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2025-04-11, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/8/2025 1:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2025-04-08, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2025 8:20 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a lot more complicated than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, take a LL(1) RD parser. Even ignoring the processing
>>>>> of the results from the parser, how much code (and how much effort)
>>>>> do you think it would take to implement it in Macro-32 compared to C ?
>>>>
>>>> Still not obvious to me that it would not follow normal LOC/FP
>>>> ratios.
>>>
>>> Try implementing one, especially with a reasonably sized grammar, and
>>> you will very rapidly understand that it is not as simple as you seem
>>> to think it is. :-)
>>
>> I have not made any claim about it being simple.
>>
>> I have made a claim that the ratio for LOC/FP for Macro-32
>> and LOC/FP for C for such a problem would not be significantly
>> different from other application types.
>>
>
> That claim is clearly incorrect.
>
> The amount of Macro-32 code required for something higher-level such
> as a RD parser that can be concisely expressed in C compared to assembly
> language is clearly greater than, say a device driver, where the device
> access and programming sequence is the same regardless of whether it
> is done in C or assembly language.
>
> You cannot even optimise the register access sequence in a C device driver
> to reduce the amount of code, (and you even have to use volatile variables
> so the compiler doesn't do it for you behind your back.)
>
>>>> Effort is a different issue. If someone said:
>>>>
>>>> x1.6 LOC
>>>> x16 hours for initial write of code
>>>> x160 hours for maintenance of code
>>>>
>>>> then I would consider it likely.
>>>>
>>>> It has been hinted a few time that the DCL code is not easy to
>>>> understand and modify.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I mentioned above, this is no longer about DCL. I picked the above
>>> standalone example, a LL(1) RD parser, because it's a really good example
>>> of the different scale of effort involved in writing it in Macro-32
>>> instead of in C.
>>
>> I have not made any claim about effort either.
>>
>> Are you sure that you have understood the topic??
>>
>
> Yes, but it's not clear if you have Arne.
>
> Simon.
>
I'd argue that such comparisons can be misleading. As a simple example,
specifying some arguments and invoking some routine. In either case, the
arguments must be specified, then invoking the routine. Is each PUSH of an
argument in assembler a separate instruction, or, just specification of an
argument? One must still specify the arguments in either case.
An example of a style I favor:
Stat% = SYS$QIOW( , ! Event flag &
ListenCh% By Value, ! VMS channel &
IO$_SETCHAR By Value, ! Operation &
IOSB::Stat%, ! I/O status block &
, ! AST routine &
, ! AST parameter &
ListenOpt::Protocol%, ! P1 &
, ! P2 &
ServerItemLst::Len%, ! P3 - local socket
na^
BackLog% By Value, ! P4 - connection
back^
SockOptItemList::Len%, ! P5 - socket
options &
) ! P6
Ok, how many lines of code?
:-)
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
