Changeset 037c072

Timestamp:

Mar 8, 2018, 3:50:49 PM (7 years ago)

Author:

Aaron Moss <a3moss@…>

Branches:

ADT, aaron-thesis, arm-eh, ast-experimental, cleanup-dtors, deferred_resn, demangler, enum, forall-pointer-decay, jacob/cs343-translation, jenkins-sandbox, master, new-ast, new-ast-unique-expr, new-env, no_list, persistent-indexer, pthread-emulation, qualifiedEnum, resolv-new, with_gc

Children:

4271a1e

Parents:

9d6f011

Message:

Minor tweak to evaluation section

File:

• doc/papers/general/Paper.tex (modified) (1 diff)

doc/papers/general/Paper.tex

@@ -2637 +2637 @@
 
 \CFA is also competitive in terms of source code size, measured as a proxy for programmer effort. The line counts in Table~\ref{tab:eval} include implementations of @pair@ and @stack@ types for all four languages for purposes of direct comparison, though it should be noted that \CFA and \CC have pre-written data structures in their standard libraries that programmers would generally use instead. Use of these standard library types has minimal impact on the performance benchmarks, but shrinks the \CFA and \CC benchmarks to 39 and 42 lines, respectively.
+The difference between the \CFA and \CC line counts is primarily declaration duplication to implement separate compilation; a header-only \CFA library would be similar in length to the \CC version.
 On the other hand, C does not have a generic collections-library in its standard distribution, resulting in frequent reimplementation of such collection types by C programmers.
 \CCV does not use the \CC standard template library by construction, and in fact includes the definition of @object@ and wrapper classes for @char@, @short@, and @int@ in its line count, which inflates this count somewhat, as an actual object-oriented language would include these in the standard library;