From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr 22 10:12:38 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F5B37B401
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9438E43F85
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from freebsd-chat-local@be-well.no-ip.com)
Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.147.188.198])
          by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with ESMTP
          id <2003042217123305200h41qbe>; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:12:35 +0000
Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.147.188.198]
	(may be forged))
	by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h3MHCXsO065983;
	Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:12:33 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from freebsd-chat-local@be-well.no-ip.com)
Received: (from lowell@localhost)
	by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h3MHCWei065980;
	Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:12:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: be-well.ilk.org: lowell set sender to
	freebsd-chat-local@be-well.ilk.org using -f
Sender: lowell@be-well.no-ip.com
To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org,
	Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>
References: <20030422132906.GB64101@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-chat-local@be-well.no-ip.com>
Date: 22 Apr 2003 13:12:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20030422132906.GB64101@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Message-ID: <444r4qmp6n.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
Lines: 26
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: Code layout and debugging time
X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
List-Id: Non technical items related to the community
	<freebsd-chat.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:12:38 -0000

Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> writes:

> I was just reading an interesting statement in Code Complete:

Ah.  You are trying to indoctrinate yourself into Microsoft's ideas of
good practices.  Thanks for warning us.

> "Although this particular statistic may be hard to put to work, a study by
> Gorla, Benander, and Benander found that the optimal number of blank lines
> in a program is about 8 to 16 percent.  Above 16 percent, debug time
> increases dramatically (1990)."
> 
> Doesn't this seem to contradict the idea that clear, well-formatted code
> with lots of blank lines is easier to read and understand?  How could
> debugging be any different?

No contradiction at all.  It just shows that the definition of "lots
of blank lines" is somewhere below 16%.  Assuming we can trust the
study (but it sounds about right to me).

> As a side note, perhaps it is simply legacy code, but it seems that the
> older the source in the BSD tree, the denser it is.  Probably to save
> punched cards, eh?  ;-)

More or less.  That 'definition of "lots of blank lines"' is probably
affected by the total amount of screen space available.