[racket] Ohloh now sees racket

15 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> But I usually avoid SLOC metrics.  Inferences are easily off by an
> order of magnitude.  And that's before you account for behavior
> modified to play to the metrics (Hawthorne effect).  But PHBs will
> draw fine conclusions from SLOC because, presumably, exaggerating
> the value of poor information is better than admitting that you
> really don't know.
> 
> Quoting a line from "https://www.ohloh.net/p/racket/estimated_cost":

I think that they did a reasonable job of putting the disclaimers in
the right places.  It seems clear that the intention is just a
semi-amusing show-off number.

After all, SLOC counts, or any other amount-of-code counts have
inherent bogosities, like the fact that Matthew invested a ton of work
for the 5.1 release which resulted in a significant LOC lossage...
And if you consider line changes or instead, then I have a few giant
commits which are almost straight regexp-replace scans, yet still
would be estimated by a good amount.

Speaking about code graphs, I think that the language graph has a few
interesting points:

* You can how in 2009 Matthew removed a good chunk of C++ code which
  was refactored as Scheme code.  You can also see that the amount of
  added Scheme code is much smaller.

* Towards the end of the year there's a small step down in the Scheme
  counts, which is probably when profj was removed.

* Next, there's the switch to Racket, and it's nice to see that the
  new LOC continutes at the same count.

* And then there's the 5.1 jump, with a huge jump down in C/C++ code,
  and a much smaller jump up in Racket code.  This is much more
  drastic than the 2009 rafactor, which probably corresponds to mostly
  translating higher level C++ code to Racket in the former, and a
  complete re-write in this one.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!