Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Martin Ward Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Compilation Quotient (CQ): A Metric for the Compilation Hardness of Programming Languages Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:06:07 +0100 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl%iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <24-06-013@comp.compilers> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="28171"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: syntax Posted-Date: 12 Jun 2024 10:50:11 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3577 On 10/06/2024 13:21, John R Levine wrote: > C has a CQ of 48, Rust barely above zero. > > In the discussion at the end they say "A programmer's task is to > write programs that compile." which I think summarizes the basic > problem with the paper. Take a look. > CQ is, very approximately, a measure of how likely it is that a compiler will detect a typo in your code (using "typo" in the broadest sense of: you are thinking of one program but actually type in something vaguely similar but different). "Almost any random garbage is a valid program in our language" does not appear to me to be a particularly attractive feature of a language. \-- Martin Dr Martin Ward | Email: [martin@gkc.org.uk](mailto:martin@gkc.org.uk) | G.K.Chesterton site: | Erdos number: 4