<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Paul Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul@cogito.org.uk">paul@cogito.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Lyle Kopnicky wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
I think it's a combination of 1) the expressiveness measure is too simplistic, measuring number of lines alone, or counting comments, and 2) the problem set is skewed toward number-crunching, which is not (say) Prolog's strong suit.<br>
</blockquote></div>
Also there is a strong tendency to optimise the code for performance rather than conciseness (concision?). In the past this tended to bloat (e.g.) Haskell entries as simple intuitive code was replaced by arrays of unboxed integers and similar C-like constructs.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Well, they're supposedly measuring performance as well. If concise Haskell is non-performant, and performant Haskell is verbose, this ought to be reflected in the charts. But it managed to perform pretty well in both. I don't think Haskell got short shrift in this analysis. Perhaps other languages suffered a more "written verbosely for performance" problem.<br>
<br>- Lyle<br>