Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15202
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Function Points |
| Date | 2012-08-27 22:28 +0200 |
| Organization | 1&1 Internet AG |
| Message-ID | <1541485.dRTfZbgPJF@sunwukong.fritz.box> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <7xy5l28rlv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <3185042.MPhYQTzUyq@sunwukong.fritz.box> <7xzk5i9pi3.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <1454970.h5ifmF2e1c@sunwukong.fritz.box> <7xtxvpkqrt.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
Paul Rubin wrote: > Oh ok, yeah, but I'd even say these days that GCC is bloated. I mean it is hellish slow to compile a non-bloated project. GCC+bloated project=lunch. Actually, I compiled Android from source over night, because I don't have the same sort of computing power as Google ;-). This feels like programming was 40 years ago on mainframes - at the time where Forth was invented. >>> style where you pass around execution tokens a lot, and those xt's >>> may take other xt's as arguments ... >> After I added quotations to my system, I started doing that >> regularly. > > I have to wonder how much debugging headache that created. Was it > a problem? No. The quotations are short, and you can only test them in context, so you just run the thing in context, it's no problem that the quotation has no name and can't be called directly on the command line. It does not make that much sense as stand-alone program. A quotation should be short, and use tested factors (which then have names). You debug quotations with ~~ statements inserted at interesting places if necessary (most quotations are right first time, because they should deliberately be simple). >> A subscript overflow is not exactly a type error. > > I think subscript overflow is considered a type error in the type > system literature, because if p is a pointer to type Foo, then p+i > also has type pointer to Foo, but if i is out of range then p+i may > actually point to something other than an Foo. I'd rather say an array with index [0..n] has a subtype of int as index, but that is an algebraic constraint. You had this example with the type system that allowed a lot of algebraic constraints, but I would not call that a type system anymore. It's more a formal verification system, following the same sort of algebra you use for type systems. The self- advertizing of Coq also says it's a formal proof management system. >>> Red-black trees are binary trees... >> That's exactly what I don't like. This is a rather complicated >> thing, and I'm sure neither of us will write a perfect program first >> time. > > But the idea is that with the right language features, we -can- get > these programs perfect the first time, if we mean the first time we > try to actually run the program. Indeed. But it's the attitude of "running the code is to be done as late as possible". You should not do that, at least not in Forth. You should start writing a program, and when you get to the point where you actually can try something (which is early), you should let it run. It is rewarding to get something done, even if it is little, and a process that is rewarding the programmier is improving productivity and makes it more fun to write programs. Humans are motivated by positive feedback, so fun is important. It's frustrating to only see error messages from the compiler. When I'd be writing an r/b tree program, the first step would be to insert nodes and print the tree. Hey, great, I can insert nodes and print a tree. It's not balanced, but I can now add tree rotation operations. And print the rotated tree. It's a hands-on experience. The program does something in all stages of development, though it is not perfect at the first run. > Of course it may take a lot of tries to > get the compiler to stop flagging errors, before we can run the > program that first time. Yes, but that's not "right first time". A program is "right first time" if - after internal debugging - it gets out error-free to the customer. What happens in between the first keystroke and the release to customer is entirely yours. This sort of "getting the program to finally compile" is frustrating for me, and what I observed from other people is that after it finally compiles, they are happy when it sort-of-runs, and are not interested in more debugging. > Right now > only a few nerds care about it, but I think it's going to become > pervasive and important as the technology matures. There are some > online books: > > 1. http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/sf/ > 2. http://adam.chlipala.net/cpdt/ > 3. http://www.paultaylor.eu/stable/Proofs+Types.html > > The first is pretty readable and I've been looking at it, the second > goes into perhaps more depth, and the third is pure theory and I don't > understand it, but I mention it for completeness. Thanks for the links. >> Yes. Usually several architectural issues stacked on each others, >> like using a complicated delegate-style OOP program > > The functional programming crowd seems pretty opposed to OOP, e.g.: > http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/teaching-fp-to- freshmen/ > "Object-oriented programming is eliminated entirely from the > introductory curriculum, because it is both anti-modular and > anti-parallel by its very nature, and hence unsuitable for a > modern CS curriculum." > > That's from a CMU professor about their new intro programming course, > which uses ML. The guy is one of ML's designers and he doesn't like > Haskell either, so hmm... ;-) Maybe a bit biased ;-). >> Given that fact, I'm less opposed than before. How useful is GHCi >> (the interactive command line)? > > It's pretty useful, especially the more recent versions that remove > some > annoying restrictions of the older ones. It's still an interpreter > that's maybe 10x slower than running compiled code. There's an Emacs > mode that lets you write Haskell code in one window and run GHCi in > another window and quickly send Emacs buffers to GHCi, sort of like > gforth.el. Nice. The fact that it still doesn't have an incremental compiler is a bit lame ;-). >> The challange is to fill a network with packets just fast enough, so >> they don't pile up in buffers, but yet leave no unused bandwidth >> under real world conditions, which means things like Wifi with >> rapidly changing quality, competing with multiple TCP/IP, BitTorrent >> or net2o itself. > > But this sounds like a computational problem, tracking the capacity > and contents of all those channels, and periodically deciding what > to do next. Haskell may be fine for that. The problem is: The buffers won't tell you. At least not as long as they are IP routers, not net2o switches - and even those won't tell you the whole story, because telling means network traffic. The network should be used for the actual data, management (including flow control) should be minimized in bandwidth. The resulting program I have is fairly trivial, and it should be possible to implement it in whatever programming language you like, given you have a precise real-time clock and access to a socket interface. > Anecdote: the best programmer I know (the initial author of GCC and > Emacs--you know who I mean) likes to tell about when he first put > automatic parenthesis balancing into Emacs, so that when you type a > right-paren, the cursor momentarily bounces back to the matching > left-paren. He said that before he implemented that feature, he > didn't have too bad a time writing properly nested Lisp code manually, > but after using the new automatic balancing for a few days, he lost > the > ability to do it by hand. And his conclusion was that this purely > mechanical skill had been tying up a significant amount of his > brainpower that he could now use for more productive purposes. Hehe. Yes, that's a defect of Lisp, which makes it hard to use. Some derivatives used ] to close all brackets, which is somewhat helpful. > It's the same way IMHO with programming language features. The more > they do for you automatically, the more your own ability is freed up > to do stuff that can't be automated. As Forther, I like to automate things, but especially those things that helps me to reduce typing. That's why we extend the compiler. On the other hand, Forth does not automate the stack, which is something pretty basic, and almost every other language automates the stack. We don't, and we have a reason for not doing so. It clearly does consume brainpower by not doing so, but it encourages factoring, which is worth the price. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-08-21 21:43 -0700
Re: Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-08-22 07:07 +0200
Re: Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-08-22 03:35 -0500
Re: Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 14:06 -0700
Function Points (was: Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-23 14:50 +0000
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-23 11:43 -0700
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-25 14:13 +0000
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-25 10:12 -0700
Re: Function Points Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 15:39 -0400
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-25 15:09 -0700
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-08-25 12:34 -1000
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-25 16:43 -0700
Re: Function Points jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 18:05 -0700
Re: Function Points jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 20:34 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-26 03:24 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-25 22:44 -0700
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-08-25 21:19 -1000
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-26 00:36 -0700
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-08-25 21:50 -1000
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-26 01:08 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-26 23:20 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-26 19:33 -0700
Re: Function Points Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-08-27 13:34 -0500
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-27 22:38 +0200
Re: Function Points Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-08-28 02:45 -0500
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-27 18:14 -0700
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-27 18:24 -0700
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-30 14:22 +0000
Re: Function Points Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-08-28 03:07 -0500
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-28 08:18 -0700
Re: Function Points Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-08-28 12:15 -0500
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-28 23:05 -0700
Re: Function Points Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-08-29 03:55 -0500
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-27 22:28 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-27 20:26 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-28 23:17 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-29 01:13 -0700
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-29 02:23 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-30 02:59 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-29 22:18 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-30 20:44 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-31 01:29 -0700
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-31 09:33 +0000
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-30 02:58 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-29 19:39 -0700
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-30 14:10 +0000
Re: Function Points gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 20:08 -0700
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-08-30 17:47 -1000
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-08-27 13:43 -1000
Re: Function Points "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-08-27 12:14 +0100
Re: Function Points Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-27 05:12 -0700
Re: Function Points "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-08-27 15:52 +0100
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-26 13:09 +0000
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-27 20:52 -0700
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-30 14:08 +0000
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-30 10:43 -0700
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-08-30 08:25 -1000
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-30 22:42 +0200
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-08-31 01:23 -0400
Re: Function Points Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-08-31 03:08 -0500
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-08-31 18:56 -0400
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-01 02:35 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-31 23:52 -0700
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-01 14:27 +0000
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-01 14:18 +0000
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-01 17:45 +0200
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-01 16:14 +0000
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-01 19:13 +0200
Re: Function Points Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-02 03:19 -0500
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-01 16:18 -0400
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-02 03:04 +0200
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-02 04:02 -0400
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-02 17:40 +0200
Re: Function Points jim@rainbarrel.com - 2012-09-02 10:32 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-02 20:49 +0200
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-02 16:33 -0400
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-02 17:03 -0400
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-02 09:02 -1000
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-02 16:35 -0400
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-02 13:42 -1000
Re: Function Points jim@rainbarrel.com - 2012-09-02 16:54 -0700
Re: Function Points Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-03 00:29 -0700
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-03 01:30 -0400
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-02 21:21 -1000
Re: Function Points jim@rainbarrel.com - 2012-09-03 10:37 -0700
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-04 07:14 +0000
Re: Function Points Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-09-03 21:12 +0200
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-03 17:32 -0400
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-03 17:51 -0400
Re: Function Points John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 22:37 -0700
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-04 04:25 -0400
Re: Function Points John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 07:35 -0700
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:13 -0400
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-04 20:18 -1000
Re: Function Points John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:56 -0700
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:11 -0400
Re: Function Points John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 14:07 -0700
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-02 16:27 -0400
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-03 00:52 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-02 16:28 -0700
Re: Function Points jim@rainbarrel.com - 2012-09-02 16:48 -0700
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-02 20:21 -0400
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-02 14:45 -1000
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-03 01:12 -0400
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-02 21:26 -1000
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-03 01:06 -0400
Re: Function Points Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-31 03:29 -0700
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-31 10:35 +0000
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-08-31 18:49 -0400
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-01 14:49 +0000
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-01 08:36 -1000
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-01 16:11 -0400
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-03 01:58 +0200
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-01 17:54 +0200
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-01 16:19 -0400
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-02 03:05 +0200
Re: Function Points Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-08-31 23:10 +0200
Re: Function Points "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-08-31 15:50 -1000
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-01 10:31 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-01 21:52 +0200
Re: Function Points "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-01 16:36 -0400
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-01 14:36 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-02 03:30 +0200
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-02 23:15 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-02 15:02 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-03 01:50 +0200
Re: Function Points jim@rainbarrel.com - 2012-09-02 16:57 -0700
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 23:11 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-04 14:30 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-04 10:14 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-04 22:10 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-06 00:19 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-06 17:48 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-06 12:01 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-06 22:02 +0200
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-06 14:19 -0700
Heap (was: Function Points) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-07 11:30 +0000
Re: Heap (was: Function Points) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 18:12 +0200
Re: Heap (was: Function Points) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-07 16:48 +0000
Re: Heap (was: Function Points) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 21:34 +0200
Re: Heap Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:04 +0100
Re: Heap anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 11:52 +0000
Re: Heap Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-08 22:48 +0200
Re: Heap (was: Function Points) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 12:11 +0000
priority queue (was: Function Points) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-03 11:46 +0000
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-03 15:03 +0200
Re: Function Points mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-03 22:36 +0200
Re: Function Points mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-06 20:27 +0200
Re: Function Points Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-02 04:00 -0500
Re: Function Points visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-09-03 10:40 -0700
Re: Function Points Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-03 20:26 +0200
Re: Function Points Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 11:49 -0400
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-27 09:16 -0700
Re: Function Points Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-08-28 22:46 +0000
Re: Function Points jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 16:06 -0700
Re: Function Points Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 20:50 -0400
Re: Function Points anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-26 12:59 +0000
Re: Function Points Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-26 22:24 -0700
Re: Function Points (was: Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages) John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 15:02 -0700
Re: Function Points (was: Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-25 14:57 +0000
Re: Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-08-22 08:07 -0400
Re: Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-08-22 08:12 -0700
Re: Comparative Productivity of Programming Languages visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-08-22 07:37 -0700
csiph-web