Thread: Now 376175 lines of code
I did a distclean on 7.0, and ran 'wc' on all the *.[chly] files, and got a much larger number than what we got from Berkeley. 376175 Seems someone has been busy. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I did a distclean on 7.0, and ran 'wc' on all the *.[chly] files, and
> got a much larger number than what we got from Berkeley.
> 376175
> Seems someone has been busy. :-)
Forgive a newbie --- what was the count for the original Berkeley code?
Do you have the same numbers for other milestones?
regards, tom lane
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > I did a distclean on 7.0, and ran 'wc' on all the *.[chly] files, and > > got a much larger number than what we got from Berkeley. > > 376175 > > Seems someone has been busy. :-) > > Forgive a newbie --- what was the count for the original Berkeley code? > Do you have the same numbers for other milestones? 250,000 -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 01:45:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > I did a distclean on 7.0, and ran 'wc' on all the *.[chly] files, and > > got a much larger number than what we got from Berkeley. > > 376175 > > Seems someone has been busy. :-) > > Forgive a newbie --- what was the count for the original Berkeley code? > Do you have the same numbers for other milestones? Not that I'm a big believer in kloc as a measure of productivity (oh, Bruce just said busy, didn't he? That's a different story...), I happen to have a couple historical trees laying around, starting with the last one I found at Berkeley: postgres-v4r2 244581 postgres95-1.09 178976 postgresql-6.1.1 200709 postgresql-6.3.2 260809postgresql-6.4.0 297479 postgresql-6.4.2 297918 postgresql-6.5.3 331278 Well, more than a couple trees, I guess (actually I unpacked tarballs for most of these) HTH, Ross -- Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer Computer and Information Technology Institute Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005
I found these numbers quite interesting. > On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 01:45:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > I did a distclean on 7.0, and ran 'wc' on all the *.[chly] files, and > > > got a much larger number than what we got from Berkeley. > > > 376175 > > > Seems someone has been busy. :-) > > > > Forgive a newbie --- what was the count for the original Berkeley code? > > Do you have the same numbers for other milestones? > > Not that I'm a big believer in kloc as a measure of productivity (oh, > Bruce just said busy, didn't he? That's a different story...), I happen > to have a couple historical trees laying around, starting with the last > one I found at Berkeley: > > postgres-v4r2 244581 > postgres95-1.09 178976 > postgresql-6.1.1 200709 > postgresql-6.3.2 260809 > postgresql-6.4.0 297479 > postgresql-6.4.2 297918 > postgresql-6.5.3 331278 > > Well, more than a couple trees, I guess (actually I unpacked tarballs > for most of these) > > HTH, > Ross > -- > Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> > NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer > Computer and Information Technology Institute > Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005 > -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Never mind. I see I ran it already on 7.0 and got 376k. You used my idential script to get these numbers. I will use your nice numbers for a presentation at the show in two weeks. Thanks a lot. > On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 01:45:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > I did a distclean on 7.0, and ran 'wc' on all the *.[chly] files, and > > > got a much larger number than what we got from Berkeley. > > > 376175 > > > Seems someone has been busy. :-) > > > > Forgive a newbie --- what was the count for the original Berkeley code? > > Do you have the same numbers for other milestones? > > Not that I'm a big believer in kloc as a measure of productivity (oh, > Bruce just said busy, didn't he? That's a different story...), I happen > to have a couple historical trees laying around, starting with the last > one I found at Berkeley: > > postgres-v4r2 244581 > postgres95-1.09 178976 > postgresql-6.1.1 200709 > postgresql-6.3.2 260809 > postgresql-6.4.0 297479 > postgresql-6.4.2 297918 > postgresql-6.5.3 331278 > > Well, more than a couple trees, I guess (actually I unpacked tarballs > for most of these) > > HTH, > Ross > -- > Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> > NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer > Computer and Information Technology Institute > Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005 > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
FYI, it is 376k lines of C code, not bytes. [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > What is amazing, is that you can make such complete system on Linux with > only 376k of code... > > I think bloated software is not part of your dictionnary, and that's good... > > Franck Martin > Database Development Officer > SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission > Fiji > E-mail: franck@sopac.org <mailto:franck@sopac.org> > Web site: http://www.sopac.org/ <http://www.sopac.org/> > > This e-mail is intended for its recipients only. Do not forward this > e-mail without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be > neccessarily the views of SOPAC. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us] > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 1:03 PM > To: Ross J. Reedstrom > Cc: Tom Lane; PostgreSQL-development > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Now 376175 lines of code > > > Never mind. I see I ran it already on 7.0 and got 376k. You used my > idential script to get these numbers. I will use your nice numbers for > a presentation at the show in two weeks. Thanks a lot. > > > > > On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 01:45:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > > I did a distclean on 7.0, and ran 'wc' on all the *.[chly] files, and > > > > got a much larger number than what we got from Berkeley. > > > > 376175 > > > > Seems someone has been busy. :-) > > > > > > Forgive a newbie --- what was the count for the original Berkeley code? > > > Do you have the same numbers for other milestones? > > > > Not that I'm a big believer in kloc as a measure of productivity (oh, > > Bruce just said busy, didn't he? That's a different story...), I happen > > to have a couple historical trees laying around, starting with the last > > one I found at Berkeley: > > > > postgres-v4r2 244581 > > postgres95-1.09 178976 > > postgresql-6.1.1 200709 > > postgresql-6.3.2 260809 > > postgresql-6.4.0 297479 > > postgresql-6.4.2 297918 > > postgresql-6.5.3 331278 > > > > Well, more than a couple trees, I guess (actually I unpacked tarballs > > for most of these) > > > > HTH, > > Ross > > -- > > Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> > > NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer > > Computer and Information Technology Institute > > Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005 > > > > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian writes: > FYI, it is 376k lines of C code, not bytes. How did you calculate that? I get this using c_count over all .c and .h files: 20903 lines had comments 25.4 % 6603 comments are inline -8.0 %11911 lines were blank 14.5 % 7287 lines for preprocessor 8.9 %48716 lines containing code 59.3 %82214 total lines 100.0 % Surely we don't have 294000 lines of Java, C++, Shell, and Perl??? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
> Bruce Momjian writes: > > > FYI, it is 376k lines of C code, not bytes. > > How did you calculate that? I get this using c_count over all .c and .h > files: > > 20903 lines had comments 25.4 % > 6603 comments are inline -8.0 % > 11911 lines were blank 14.5 % > 7287 lines for preprocessor 8.9 % > 48716 lines containing code 59.3 % > 82214 total lines 100.0 % > > Surely we don't have 294000 lines of Java, C++, Shell, and Perl??? I just counted lines, not line content. Not sure which is more meaningful. Our comments are as important as the code, sometimes, though they do not add functionality to the application. I am not inclined to inflate numbers, but I am not sure the 59% number is accurate either. Opinions? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > FYI, it is 376k lines of C code, not bytes. > > How did you calculate that? I get this using c_count over all .c and .h > files: > > 20903 lines had comments 25.4 % > 6603 comments are inline -8.0 % > 11911 lines were blank 14.5 % > 7287 lines for preprocessor 8.9 % > 48716 lines containing code 59.3 % > 82214 total lines 100.0 % > > Surely we don't have 294000 lines of Java, C++, Shell, and Perl??? doing the following in version 6.5.3 in src/backend [hannu@hu backend]$ cat */*.[ch] */*/*.[ch] */*/*/*.[ch]| wc gives 208284 658632 5249304 So you (or c_count ;) must be missing some files in src/ ther result was [hannu@hu src]$ cat */*.[ch] */*/*.[ch] */*/*/*.[ch] */*/*/*/*.[ch]| wc311469 1069935 8440682 ------------- Hannu
I compute the code count with: find . -name \*.[chyl] | xargs cat| wc -l -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >
> > > FYI, it is 376k lines of C code, not bytes.
> >
> > How did you calculate that? I get this using c_count over all .c and .h
> > files:
> >
> > 20903 lines had comments 25.4 %
> > 6603 comments are inline -8.0 %
> > 11911 lines were blank 14.5 %
> > 7287 lines for preprocessor 8.9 %
> > 48716 lines containing code 59.3 %
> > 82214 total lines 100.0 %
> >
> > Surely we don't have 294000 lines of Java, C++, Shell, and Perl???
>
> doing the following in version 6.5.3 in src/backend
>
> [hannu@hu backend]$ cat */*.[ch] */*/*.[ch] */*/*/*.[ch]| wc
>
> gives
>
> 208284 658632 5249304
>
> So you (or c_count ;) must be missing some files
>
> in src/ ther result was
> [hannu@hu src]$ cat */*.[ch] */*/*.[ch] */*/*/*.[ch] */*/*/*/*.[ch]| wc
> 311469 1069935 8440682
Just now downloaded from ftp.postgresql.org:
$ tar -zxvf postgresql-6.5.3.tar.gz
$ cd postgresql-6.5.3 $ wc `find -name "*.[ch]"` 318131 1089740 8585092 total $ wc `find -name "*"`
7568103037982 25583644 total
$ cd src $ wc `find -name "*.[ch]"` 311469 1069935 8440682 total $ wc `find -name "*"` 519318
202426216656475 total
$ tar -zxvf postgresql-7.0.2.tar.gz
$ cd postgresql-7.0.2 $ wc `find -name "*.[ch]"` 368502 1263333 9910813 total $ wc `find -name "*"`
7568103037982 25583644 total
$ cd src $ wc `find -name "*.[ch]"` 361297 1240788 9751161 total $ wc `find -name "*"` 596772
236055518574015 total
Karel
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 01:30:25PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I compute the code count with: > > find . -name \*.[chyl] | xargs cat| wc -l Right, that solves the problem others might be seeing, with the command line getting expanded and silently chopped off. For example, no one seems to have commented on the -8% of inline comments reported by Peter's c_count! Funny math, indeed. Ross -- Open source code is like a natural resource, it's the result of providing food and sunshine to programmers, and then staying out of their way. [...] [It] is not going away because it has utility for both the developers and users independent of economic motivations. Jim Flynn, Sunnyvale, Calif.
Ross J. Reedstrom writes: > For example, no one seems to have commented on the -8% of inline > comments reported by Peter's c_count! Funny math, indeed. If you had actually done the math ;-) you would have noticed that the percentage of the inline comments is negative because those lines have both comments and code, therefore the total has to exclude these lines once when adding comments and code. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > I just counted lines, not line content. Not sure which is more > meaningful. Our comments are as important as the code, sometimes, > though they do not add functionality to the application. I am not > inclined to inflate numbers, but I am not sure the 59% number is > accurate either. > Counting the number of lines is only meaningful as a relative measurement of complexity and spent effort - IMHO. And I think lines of code measurements usually ignore blank lines and lines with comments. However, Preprocessor directives is code - and sometimes it would be fair to add some extra lines for the increased complexity caused by cool CPP macros ;-) Regards, GunnarGunnar