Re: [tlug] Large project Agile development

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:

 > Well, comments don't generally count for LoC, unless you need the
 > comments because your code is compact instead of concise. And I'm
 > looking for more than 40% savings these days; I was easily getting that
 > from my switch from Java to Ruby.

LoC is a plausible first approximation for runtime functionality, but
I don't think it's very good measure of the cost of a full product
(including documentation, etc.)

 > 
 > On 2008-08-19 21:44 +0900 (Tue), Hung Nguyen Vu wrote:
 > 
 > > By "compact", I mean short, generic and sometimes hackerish. For smart
 > > and experience programmers, such code is not a matter but average
 > > coders will find it hard to maintain.
 > 
 > Quite possibly. Then again, "average" coders will find large, messy
 > programs hard to maintain, too.

Smart/experienced programmers will usually have trouble "maintaining"
short/generic/hackish programs, too.  AFAIK the first cut is along the
lines of "if you know when to say 'not with a 10-ft pole' and proceed
right to refactor/rewrite, you're smart".  But that's not cheap even
if you're smart/experienced, and you're likely to make big mistakes
even so because the requirements are poorly documented, etc.