One line of C++ can generate unbounded amounts of machine code, and in practice it comes close in real world usage. 
-
-
-
Was going to suggest that lang-code => machine-code is probably not a great metric of goodness.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The last “study” (arbitrary formulas attached to results, effectively marketing copy for this guy’s software metrics company, *shudder*) I read that tried a shootout here for the “instruction density” of a “line of code” concluded that we should all be writing Excel.
-
this is beautiful: it’s way higher level, further into userspace: I wonder how good Jupyter setups and Mathematica compare
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In my personal experience, yes. I rewrote a C++ project in rust, and the LoC went down by ~20% (mainly because of chaining functions like .map.filter.collect()). The same happened in portions of other projects as well.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or just because the compiler do not just compile but also do the job of a separate static analyzer in cpp
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There's a lot of useful stuff in libstd that contributes to smaller code in Rust. If C++ had the same features in STL, it could arguably be slightly less verbose. On the flip side, I've found Rust to often require unreasonable amounts of boilerplate code.
-
Boilerplate like what?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.