608:
However, functionality is less well correlated with SLOC: skilled developers may be able to develop the same functionality with far less code, so one program with fewer SLOC may exhibit more functionality than another similar program. Counting SLOC as productivity measure has its caveats, since a developer can develop only a few lines and yet be far more productive in terms of functionality than a developer who ends up creating more lines (and generally spending more effort). Good developers may merge multiple code modules into a single module, improving the system yet appearing to have negative productivity because they remove code. Furthermore, inexperienced developers often resort to
1289:, programmers can write relatively little code and achieve high levels of functionality. For example, instead of writing a program to create a window and draw a button, a user with a GUI tool can use drag-and-drop and other mouse operations to place components on a workspace. Code that is automatically generated by a GUI tool is not usually taken into consideration when using LOC methods of measurement. This results in variation between languages; the same task that can be done in a single line of code (or no code at all) in one language may require several lines of code in another.
1328:, how much they did. How many K-LOCs did you do? And we kept trying to convince them – hey, if we have – a developer's got a good idea and he can get something done in 4K-LOCs instead of 20K-LOCs, should we make less money? Because he's made something smaller and faster, less K-LOC. K-LOCs, K-LOCs, that's the methodology. Ugh! Anyway, that always makes my back just crinkle up at the thought of the whole thing.
113:
1174:
561:
215:
25:
66:
1263:
LOC may exhibit more functionality than another similar program. In particular, LOC is a poor productivity measure of individuals, because a developer who develops only a few lines may still be more productive than a developer creating more lines of code – even more: some good refactoring like "extract method" to get rid of
941:, and reported that Red Hat Linux version 7.1 (released April 2001) contained over 30 million physical SLOC. He also extrapolated that, had it been developed by conventional proprietary means, it would have required about 8,000 person-years of development effort and would have cost over $ 1 billion (in year 2000 U.S. dollars).
1278:
application would be different. The lines of code needed to develop the application would certainly not be the same. As a consequence, the amount of effort required to develop the application would be different (hours per function point). Unlike lines of code, the number of function points will remain constant.
1236:
Scope for automation of counting: since line of code is a physical entity, manual counting effort can be easily eliminated by automating the counting process. Small utilities may be developed for counting the LOC in a program. However, a logical code counting utility developed for a specific language
948:
version 2.2 (also known as "Potato"); this operating system was originally released in August 2000. This study found that Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 included over 55 million SLOC, and if developed in a conventional proprietary way would have required 14,005 person-years and cost US$ 1.9 billion to develop.
326:
of lines of code in a project. Using lines of code to compare a 10,000-line project to a 100,000-line project is far more useful than when comparing a 20,000-line project with a 21,000-line project. While it is debatable exactly how to measure lines of code, discrepancies of an order of magnitude can
1273:
Developer's experience: implementation of a specific logic differs based on the level of experience of the developer. Hence, number of lines of code differs from person to person. An experienced developer may implement certain functionality in fewer lines of code than another developer of relatively
1292:
Problems with multiple languages: in today's software scenario, software is often developed in more than one language. Very often, a number of languages are employed depending on the complexity and requirements. Tracking and reporting of productivity and defect rates poses a serious problem in this
607:
SLOC measures are somewhat controversial, particularly in the way that they are sometimes misused. Experiments have repeatedly confirmed that effort is highly correlated with SLOC, that is, programs with larger SLOC values take more time to develop. Thus, SLOC can be effective in estimating effort.
1300:
Psychology: a programmer whose productivity is being measured in lines of code will have an incentive to write unnecessarily verbose code. The more management is focusing on lines of code, the more incentive the programmer has to expand his code with unneeded complexity. This is undesirable, since
1262:
Lack of cohesion with functionality: though experiments have repeatedly confirmed that while effort is highly correlated with LOC, functionality is less well correlated with LOC. That is, skilled developers may be able to develop the same functionality with far less code, so one program with less
1323:
In IBM there's a religion in software that says you have to count K-LOCs, and a K-LOC is a thousand lines of code. How big a project is it? Oh, it's sort of a 10K-LOC project. This is a 20K-LOCer. And this is 50K-LOCs. And IBM wanted to sort of make it the religion about how we got paid. How much
1296:
Lack of counting standards: there is no standard definition of what a line of code is. Do comments count? Are data declarations included? What happens if a statement extends over several lines? – These are the questions that often arise. Though organizations like SEI and IEEE have published some
1277:
Difference in languages: consider two applications that provide the same functionality (screens, reports, databases). One of the applications is written in C++ and the other application written in a language like COBOL. The number of function points would be exactly the same, but aspects of the
806:
simply by dragging an icon onto a workspace. The work involved in creating this code cannot reasonably be compared to the work necessary to write a device driver, for instance. By the same token, a hand-coded custom GUI class could easily be more demanding than a simple device driver; hence the
346:
is the number of statement-terminating semicolons). It is much easier to create tools that measure physical SLOC, and physical SLOC definitions are easier to explain. However, physical SLOC measures are more sensitive to logically irrelevant formatting and style conventions than logical SLOC.
1344:
When the Lisa team was pushing to finalize their software in 1982, project managers started requiring programmers to submit weekly forms reporting on the number of lines of code they had written. Bill
Atkinson thought that was silly. For the week in which he had rewritten QuickDraw’s region
542:
were the main form of data entry for programming. One punched card usually represented one line of code. It was one discrete object that was easily counted. It was the visible output of the programmer, so it made sense to managers to count lines of code as a measurement of a programmer's
522:) and others developed a framework for defining SLOC values, to enable people to carefully explain and define the SLOC measure used in a project. For example, most software systems reuse code, and determining which (if any) reused code to include is important when reporting a measure.
334:
There are two major types of SLOC measures: physical SLOC (LOC) and logical SLOC (LLOC). Specific definitions of these two measures vary, but the most common definition of physical SLOC is a count of lines in the text of the program's source code excluding comment lines.
1258:
Lack of accountability: lines-of-code measure suffers from some fundamental problems. Some think that it isn't useful to measure the productivity of a project using only results from the coding phase, which usually accounts for only 30% to 35% of the overall
797:
Another increasingly common problem in comparing SLOC metrics is the difference between auto-generated and hand-written code. Modern software tools often have the capability to auto-generate enormous amounts of code with a few clicks of a mouse. For instance,
1244:
are said to be more of an objective metric which cannot be imagined as being a physical entity, it exists only in the logical space. This way, LOC comes in handy to express the size of software among programmers with low levels of
547:". Today, the most commonly used computer languages allow a lot more leeway for formatting. Text lines are no longer limited to 80 or 96 columns, and one line of text no longer necessarily corresponds to one line of code.
1599:
Debian 7.0 was released in May 2013. The number is an estimate published on 2012-02-13, using the code base which would become Debian 7.0, using the same software method as for the data published by David A. Wheeler.
1345:
calculation routines to be six times faster and 2000 lines shorter, he put “-2000″ on the form. After a few more weeks the managers stopped asking him to fill out the form, and he gladly complied.
1237:
cannot be used for other languages due to the syntactical and structural differences among languages. Physical LOC counters, however, have been produced which count dozens of languages.
338:
Logical SLOC attempts to measure the number of executable "statements", but their specific definitions are tied to specific computer languages (one simple logical SLOC measure for
833:
instead of SLOC as a measure of functionality, but since function points are highly correlated to SLOC (and cannot be automatically measured) this is not a universally held view.
949:
Later runs of the tools used report that the following release of Debian had 104 million SLOC, and as of year 2005, the newest release is going to include over 213 million SLOC.
1293:
case, since defects cannot be attributed to a particular language subsequent to integration of the system. Function point stands out to be the best measure of size in this case.
1297:
guidelines in an attempt to standardize counting, it is difficult to put these into practice especially in the face of newer and newer languages being introduced every year.
829:. While these models have shown good predictive power, they are only as good as the estimates (particularly the SLOC estimates) fed to them. Many have advocated the use of
1248:
Ubiquitous measure: LOC measures have been around since the earliest days of software. As such, it is arguable that more LOC data is available than any other size measure.
615:
SLOC counting exhibits further accuracy issues at comparing programs written in different languages unless adjustment factors are applied to normalize languages. Various
1657:
1240:
An intuitive metric: line of code serves as an intuitive metric for measuring the size of software because it can be seen, and the effect of it can be visualized.
1708:
1603:
587:
571:
1270:
Adverse impact on estimation: because of the fact presented under point #1, estimates based on lines of code can adversely go wrong, in all possibility.
810:
There are several cost, schedule, and effort estimation models which use SLOC as an input parameter, including the widely used
Constructive Cost Model (
87:
74:
1861:
347:
However, SLOC measures are often stated without giving their definition, and logical SLOC can often be significantly different from physical SLOC.
1945:
1855:
1365:
1914:
1355:
1536:
130:
38:
803:
1492:
575:
229:
225:
1934:
1906:
1217:
266:
196:
52:
1184:
177:
1535:
González-Barahona, Jesús M.; Miguel A. Ortuño Pérez; Pedro de las Heras Quirós; José Centeno González; Vicente Matellán
Olivera.
799:
149:
1858:
Resource
Standard Metrics (RSM) defines "effective lines of code" as a realistics code metric independent of programming style.
1360:
1803:
Forecasting Field Defect Rates Using a
Combined Time-based and Metric–based Approach a Case Study of OpenBSD (CMU-ISRI-05-125)
519:
134:
306:. SLOC is typically used to predict the amount of effort that will be required to develop a program, as well as to estimate
156:
1812:
1704:
1422:
163:
1199:
433:
Depending on the programmer and coding standards, the above "line" of code could be written on many separate lines:
1607:
1403:
1575:
1195:
579:
241:
123:
79:
1960:
1445:
145:
44:
1680:"Linux Kernel Development: How Fast it is Going, Who is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring It"
1653:
1282:
636:
624:
339:
307:
1773:
1629:
612:, which is highly discouraged as it is more bug-prone and costly to maintain, but it results in higher SLOC.
1333:
1301:
increased complexity can lead to increased cost of maintenance and increased effort required for bug fixing.
1286:
1801:
1640:
86 million lines of source code that was ported to run on an entirely new architecture with zero hiccups.
1472:
1383:
Possibly including the whole iLife suite, not just the operating system and usually bundled applications.
1736:
1748:
1683:
1311:
343:
1544:
628:
350:
Consider this snippet of C code as an example of the ambiguity encountered when determining SLOC:
170:
323:
1918:
1837:
1902:
620:
616:
535:
514:
Even the "logical" and "physical" SLOC values can have a large number of varying definitions.
1521:
1496:
510:
1 comment line: tools must account for all code and comments regardless of comment placement.
1824:
1476:
945:
822:
530:
At the time when SLOC was introduced as a metric, the most commonly used languages, such as
299:
1241:
311:
295:
1938:
1477:
623:
would require hundreds of lines of code to perform the same task as a few characters in
1264:
1074:
830:
609:
515:
1679:
1954:
1337:
1316:
819:
539:
507:
2 logical lines of code (LLOC): what about all the work writing non-statement lines?
851:
1411:, Center for Systems and Software Engineering, University of Southern California
1035:
815:
538:, were line-oriented languages. These languages were developed at the time when
303:
112:
1828:
951:
846:
841:
According to
Vincent Maraia, the SLOC values for various operating systems in
544:
1285:
tools: with the advent of GUI-based programming languages and tools such as
842:
619:
balance brevity and clarity in different ways; as an extreme example, most
65:
1060:
826:
419:
328:
1838:"Software Size Measurement: A Framework for Counting Source Statements"
1579:
1047:
934:
531:
504:
4 physical lines of code (LOC): is placing braces work to be estimated?
1862:
Effective Lines of Code eLOC Metrics for popular Open Source
Software
811:
423:
1869:
1678:
Greg Kroah-Hartman; Jonathan Corbet; Amanda McPherson (April 2012).
1202:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
938:
640:
632:
1864:
Linux Kernel 2.6.17, Firefox, Apache HTTPD, MySQL, PHP using RSM.
1325:
1884:
1402:
Vu Nguyen; Sophia Deeds-Rubin; Thomas Tan; Barry Boehm (2007),
1705:"Summary, Outlook, Statistics - The H Open: News and Features"
1306:
1167:
554:
208:
106:
59:
18:
16:
Software metric used to measure the size of a computer program
302:
by counting the number of lines in the text of the program's
1813:"From the Ground Up: The DIMACS Software Security Workshop"
1722:
1723:"Linux-Kernel durchbricht die 20-Millionen-Zeilen-Marke"
1274:
less experience does, though they use the same language.
1267:
and keep it clean will mostly reduce the lines of code.
1191:
237:
1915:"Tanenbaum outlines his vision for a grandma-proof OS"
1946:
Folklore.org: Macintosh
Stories: -2000 Lines Of Code
1935:"Metrics collection tools for C and C++ Source Code"
1604:"Debian Wheezy: US$ 19 Billion. Your price... FREE!"
1522:"More Than a Gigabuck: Estimating GNU/Linux's Size"
1423:"Quantifying the Benefits of Using Function Points"
643:(a language known for being particularly verbose).
137:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
802:automatically generate all the source code for a
1737:"a short history of lines of code (loc) metrics"
627:. The following example shows a comparison of a
1836:Park, Robert E.; et al. (31 August 1992).
1800:Li, Luo; Herbsleb, Jim; Shaw, Mary (May 2005).
1515:
1513:
1319:criticized the use of counting lines of code:
327:be clear indicators of software complexity or
1856:Definitions of Practical Source Lines of Code
1569:
1567:
1565:
1563:
1561:
1475:. Microsoft. January 11, 2011. Archived from
1440:
1438:
1436:
1434:
1432:
1430:
8:
1537:"Counting potatoes: the size of Debian 2.2"
1340:in 1982 found problems with this practice:
53:Learn how and when to remove these messages
1493:"A history of Windows - Microsoft Windows"
1630:"Live from WWDC 2006: Steve Jobs Keynote"
1218:Learn how and when to remove this message
543:productivity, even referring to such as "
438:/* Now how many lines of code is this? */
322:Many useful comparisons involve only the
267:Learn how and when to remove this message
197:Learn how and when to remove this message
645:
574:: vague phrasing that often accompanies
240:by adding descriptive text and removing
90:of all important aspects of the article.
1473:"How Many Lines of Code in Windows XP?"
1394:
1376:
1366:Cost estimation in software engineering
1885:"Counting Source Lines of Code (SLOC)"
1356:Software development effort estimation
86:Please consider expanding the lead to
406:/* How many lines of code is this? */
7:
1749:"MacPaint and QuickDraw Source Code"
1458:This in turn cites Vincent Maraia's
1446:"How Many Lines of Code in Windows?"
135:adding citations to reliable sources
1774:"Folklore.org: -2000 Lines Of Code"
944:A similar study was later made of
14:
1842:Technical Report CMU/SEI-92-TR-20
1811:McGraw, Gary (March–April 2003).
1462:as the source of the information.
800:graphical user interface builders
34:This article has multiple issues.
1711:from the original on 2013-12-19.
1703:Thorsten Leemhuis (2012-10-01).
1652:Thorsten Leemhuis (2009-12-03).
1172:
559:
418:2 logical lines of code (LLOC) (
213:
111:
64:
23:
1883:Wheeler, David A. (June 2001).
1660:from the original on 2013-12-19
1520:David A. Wheeler (2001-06-30).
1448:. Knowing.NET. December 6, 2005
1361:Estimation (project management)
314:once the software is produced.
122:needs additional citations for
78:may be too short to adequately
42:or discuss these issues on the
520:Software Engineering Institute
415:1 physical line of code (LOC),
298:used to measure the size of a
88:provide an accessible overview
1:
1806:. Carnegie-Mellon University.
933:David A. Wheeler studied the
849:product line are as follows:
1913:Howard Dahdah (2007-01-24).
1654:"What's new in Linux 2.6.32"
1495:. 2012-09-21. Archived from
807:shortcoming of this metric.
1817:IEEE Security & Privacy
1628:Jobs, Steve (August 2006).
1198:the claims made and adding
1979:
1901:(2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
1829:10.1109/MSECP.2003.1193213
804:graphical control elements
586:Such statements should be
500:In this example we have:
411:In this example we have:
1899:Modern Operating Systems
1405:A SLOC Counting Standard
753:"hello, world"
717:
672:
666:"hello, world"
660:
435:
352:
308:programming productivity
1334:Computer History Museum
791:(excluding whitespace)
242:less pertinent examples
1347:
1330:
1315:, Microsoft executive
939:Linux operating system
814:) series of models by
786:(excluding whitespace)
551:Usage of SLOC measures
146:"Source lines of code"
1897:Tanenbaum, Andrew S.
1342:
1321:
629:"hello world" program
344:programming languages
1684:The Linux Foundation
1312:Triumph of the Nerds
1154:Linux kernel pre-4.2
937:distribution of the
588:clarified or removed
280:Source lines of code
131:improve this article
1132:Linux kernel 2.6.35
1121:Linux kernel 2.6.32
1110:Linux kernel 2.6.29
924:Windows Server 2003
318:Measurement methods
238:improve the article
1868:Wheeler, David A.
1602:James Bromberger.
1574:Robles, Gregorio.
1324:money we made off
1183:possibly contains
1099:Linux kernel 2.6.0
1088:Linux kernel 2.4.2
699:"hello, world
621:assembly languages
617:computer languages
324:order of magnitude
1941:on June 19, 2020.
1576:"Debian Counting"
1332:According to the
1228:
1227:
1220:
1185:original research
1161:
1160:
931:
930:
795:
794:
605:
604:
536:assembly language
489:"hello"
400:"hello"
286:), also known as
277:
276:
269:
259:
258:
207:
206:
199:
181:
105:
104:
57:
1968:
1961:Software metrics
1942:
1937:. Archived from
1929:
1927:
1926:
1917:. Archived from
1894:
1892:
1891:
1879:
1877:
1876:
1845:
1832:
1807:
1788:
1787:
1785:
1784:
1778:www.folklore.org
1770:
1764:
1763:
1761:
1760:
1745:
1739:
1733:
1727:
1726:
1719:
1713:
1712:
1700:
1694:
1693:
1691:
1690:
1675:
1669:
1668:
1666:
1665:
1649:
1643:
1642:
1637:
1636:
1625:
1619:
1618:
1616:
1615:
1606:. Archived from
1597:
1591:
1590:
1588:
1587:
1578:. Archived from
1571:
1556:
1555:
1553:
1552:
1543:. Archived from
1532:
1526:
1525:
1517:
1508:
1507:
1505:
1504:
1489:
1483:
1482:
1480:
1469:
1463:
1460:The Build Master
1456:
1454:
1453:
1442:
1425:
1419:
1413:
1412:
1410:
1399:
1384:
1381:
1336:Apple Developer
1223:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1203:
1200:inline citations
1176:
1175:
1168:
1143:Linux kernel 3.6
958:Operating system
952:
946:Debian GNU/Linux
858:Operating system
852:
789:Lines of code: 6
784:Lines of code: 4
779:Lines of code: 1
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
757:
754:
751:
748:
745:
742:
739:
736:
733:
730:
727:
724:
721:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
694:
691:
688:
685:
682:
679:
676:
667:
664:
646:
610:code duplication
600:
597:
591:
563:
562:
555:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
481:
478:
475:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
445:
442:
439:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
368:
365:
362:
359:
356:
300:computer program
272:
265:
254:
251:
245:
217:
216:
209:
202:
195:
191:
188:
182:
180:
139:
115:
107:
100:
97:
91:
68:
60:
49:
27:
26:
19:
1978:
1977:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1951:
1950:
1932:
1924:
1922:
1912:
1889:
1887:
1882:
1874:
1872:
1867:
1852:
1835:
1810:
1799:
1796:
1794:Further reading
1791:
1782:
1780:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1758:
1756:
1747:
1746:
1742:
1734:
1730:
1725:. 30 June 2015.
1721:
1720:
1716:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1688:
1686:
1677:
1676:
1672:
1663:
1661:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1634:
1632:
1627:
1626:
1622:
1613:
1611:
1601:
1598:
1594:
1585:
1583:
1573:
1572:
1559:
1550:
1548:
1534:
1533:
1529:
1519:
1518:
1511:
1502:
1500:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1457:
1451:
1449:
1444:
1443:
1428:
1420:
1416:
1408:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1352:
1255:
1242:Function points
1233:
1224:
1213:
1207:
1204:
1189:
1177:
1173:
1166:
961:SLOC (million)
861:SLOC (million)
839:
831:function points
825:and Galorath's
790:
785:
781:(no whitespace)
780:
774:
773:
770:
767:
764:
761:
758:
755:
752:
749:
746:
743:
740:
737:
734:
731:
728:
725:
722:
719:
714:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
683:
680:
678:<stdio.h>
677:
674:
669:
668:
665:
662:
601:
595:
592:
585:
564:
560:
553:
528:
498:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
437:
429:1 comment line.
409:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
363:
360:
357:
354:
320:
312:maintainability
296:software metric
273:
262:
261:
260:
255:
249:
246:
235:
218:
214:
203:
192:
186:
183:
140:
138:
128:
116:
101:
95:
92:
85:
73:This article's
69:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1976:
1975:
1972:
1964:
1963:
1953:
1952:
1949:
1948:
1943:
1930:
1910:
1895:
1880:
1865:
1859:
1851:
1850:External links
1848:
1847:
1846:
1833:
1808:
1795:
1792:
1790:
1789:
1765:
1740:
1728:
1714:
1695:
1670:
1644:
1620:
1592:
1557:
1527:
1509:
1484:
1481:on 2022-02-26.
1464:
1426:
1414:
1393:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1385:
1375:
1373:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1363:
1358:
1351:
1348:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1265:redundant code
1260:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1238:
1232:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1180:
1178:
1171:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1003:
1000:
996:
995:
992:
989:
985:
984:
981:
978:
974:
973:
970:
967:
963:
962:
959:
956:
929:
928:
925:
922:
918:
917:
914:
911:
907:
906:
903:
900:
896:
895:
892:
891:Windows NT 4.0
889:
885:
884:
881:
880:Windows NT 3.5
878:
874:
873:
870:
869:Windows NT 3.1
867:
863:
862:
859:
856:
838:
835:
793:
792:
787:
782:
776:
775:
720:identification
718:
715:
673:
670:
661:
657:
656:
653:
650:
603:
602:
596:September 2013
567:
565:
558:
552:
549:
527:
524:
518:(while at the
516:Robert E. Park
512:
511:
508:
505:
436:
431:
430:
427:
422:statement and
416:
353:
319:
316:
275:
274:
257:
256:
221:
219:
212:
205:
204:
119:
117:
110:
103:
102:
82:the key points
72:
70:
63:
58:
32:
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1974:
1973:
1962:
1959:
1958:
1956:
1947:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1931:
1921:on 2007-01-27
1920:
1916:
1911:
1908:
1907:0-13-092641-8
1904:
1900:
1896:
1886:
1881:
1871:
1866:
1863:
1860:
1857:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1809:
1805:
1804:
1798:
1797:
1793:
1779:
1775:
1769:
1766:
1754:
1750:
1744:
1741:
1738:
1732:
1729:
1724:
1718:
1715:
1710:
1706:
1699:
1696:
1685:
1681:
1674:
1671:
1659:
1655:
1648:
1645:
1641:
1631:
1624:
1621:
1610:on 2014-02-23
1609:
1605:
1596:
1593:
1582:on 2013-03-14
1581:
1577:
1570:
1568:
1566:
1564:
1562:
1558:
1547:on 2008-05-03
1546:
1542:
1538:
1531:
1528:
1523:
1516:
1514:
1510:
1499:on 2012-09-21
1498:
1494:
1488:
1485:
1479:
1474:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1447:
1441:
1439:
1437:
1435:
1433:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1418:
1415:
1407:
1406:
1398:
1395:
1389:
1380:
1377:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1362:
1359:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1346:
1341:
1339:
1338:Bill Atkinson
1335:
1329:
1327:
1320:
1318:
1317:Steve Ballmer
1314:
1313:
1308:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1253:Disadvantages
1252:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1222:
1219:
1211:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1187:
1186:
1181:This section
1179:
1170:
1169:
1163:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1001:
998:
997:
993:
990:
987:
986:
982:
979:
976:
975:
971:
968:
965:
964:
960:
957:
954:
953:
950:
947:
942:
940:
936:
926:
923:
920:
919:
915:
912:
909:
908:
905:more than 29
904:
901:
898:
897:
893:
890:
887:
886:
882:
879:
876:
875:
871:
868:
865:
864:
860:
857:
854:
853:
850:
848:
844:
836:
834:
832:
828:
824:
821:
820:PRICE Systems
817:
813:
808:
805:
801:
788:
783:
778:
777:
716:
671:
659:
658:
654:
651:
648:
647:
644:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
613:
611:
599:
589:
583:
581:
577:
573:
568:This article
566:
557:
556:
550:
548:
546:
541:
540:punched cards
537:
533:
525:
523:
521:
517:
509:
506:
503:
502:
501:
434:
428:
425:
421:
417:
414:
413:
412:
351:
348:
345:
341:
336:
332:
330:
325:
317:
315:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:lines of code
285:
281:
271:
268:
253:
243:
239:
233:
231:
227:
222:This article
220:
211:
210:
201:
198:
190:
187:February 2010
179:
176:
172:
169:
165:
162:
158:
155:
151:
148: –
147:
143:
142:Find sources:
136:
132:
126:
125:
120:This article
118:
114:
109:
108:
99:
89:
83:
81:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
56:
54:
47:
46:
41:
40:
35:
30:
21:
20:
1939:the original
1933:C. M. Lott.
1923:. Retrieved
1919:the original
1898:
1888:. Retrieved
1873:. Retrieved
1841:
1823:(2): 59–66.
1820:
1816:
1802:
1781:. Retrieved
1777:
1768:
1757:. Retrieved
1755:. 2010-07-18
1752:
1743:
1731:
1717:
1698:
1687:. Retrieved
1673:
1662:. Retrieved
1647:
1639:
1633:. Retrieved
1623:
1612:. Retrieved
1608:the original
1595:
1584:. Retrieved
1580:the original
1549:. Retrieved
1545:the original
1540:
1530:
1501:. Retrieved
1497:the original
1487:
1478:the original
1467:
1459:
1450:. Retrieved
1417:
1404:
1397:
1379:
1343:
1331:
1322:
1310:
1309:documentary
1304:
1287:Visual Basic
1214:
1205:
1182:
1075:Linux kernel
943:
932:
902:Windows 2000
840:
809:
796:
614:
606:
593:
580:unverifiable
572:weasel words
569:
529:
513:
499:
432:
410:
349:
337:
333:
321:
291:
287:
283:
279:
278:
263:
247:
236:Please help
224:may contain
223:
193:
184:
174:
167:
160:
153:
141:
129:Please help
124:verification
121:
93:
77:
75:lead section
50:
43:
37:
36:Please help
33:
1870:"SLOCCount"
1245:experience.
1036:OpenSolaris
816:Barry Boehm
631:written in
582:information
545:card images
426:statement),
304:source code
1925:2007-01-29
1890:2003-08-12
1875:2003-08-12
1783:2021-04-15
1759:2021-04-15
1689:2012-04-10
1664:2009-12-24
1635:2007-02-16
1614:2014-02-07
1586:2007-02-16
1551:2003-08-12
1541:debian.org
1503:2021-03-26
1452:2010-08-30
1390:References
1281:Advent of
1231:Advantages
1208:April 2011
1192:improve it
1151:2015-06-30
1024:Debian 7.0
1013:Debian 5.0
1002:Debian 4.0
991:Debian 3.1
980:Debian 3.0
969:Debian 2.2
913:Windows XP
847:Windows NT
729:program-id
230:irrelevant
157:newspapers
96:April 2012
39:improve it
1196:verifying
1080:0.010239
843:Microsoft
741:procedure
570:contains
329:man-hours
226:excessive
80:summarize
45:talk page
1955:Category
1709:Archived
1658:Archived
1350:See also
1061:Mac OS X
827:SEER-SEM
818:et al.,
750:display
744:division
723:division
675:#include
294:), is a
250:May 2012
232:examples
1305:In the
1259:effort.
1190:Please
1164:Utility
1048:FreeBSD
935:Red Hat
837:Example
765:program
756:goback
532:FORTRAN
526:Origins
171:scholar
1905:
1735:IFPUG
1421:IFPUG
972:55–59
894:11–12
823:True S
812:COCOMO
705:"
693:printf
655:COBOL
639:, and
576:biased
483:printf
424:printf
394:printf
342:-like
173:
166:
159:
152:
144:
1409:(PDF)
1372:Notes
1157:20.2
1146:15.9
1135:13.5
1124:12.6
1113:11.0
768:hello
735:hello
663:PRINT
649:BASIC
641:COBOL
633:BASIC
178:JSTOR
164:books
1903:ISBN
1326:OS/2
1140:2012
1129:2010
1118:2009
1107:2009
1102:5.2
1096:2003
1091:2.4
1085:2001
1077:0.01
1071:1991
1063:10.4
1057:2005
1052:8.8
1040:9.7
1032:2009
1027:419
1021:2012
1016:324
1010:2009
1005:283
999:2007
994:215
988:2005
983:104
977:2002
966:2000
955:Year
921:2003
910:2001
899:2000
888:1996
883:7–8
877:1994
872:4–5
866:1993
855:Year
684:main
534:and
462:<
376:<
284:SLOC
150:news
1825:doi
1753:CHM
1307:PBS
1283:GUI
1194:by
1066:86
927:50
916:45
845:'s
762:end
681:int
625:APL
578:or
465:100
441:for
420:for
379:100
355:for
310:or
292:LOC
228:or
133:by
1957::
1840:.
1819:.
1815:.
1776:.
1751:.
1707:.
1682:.
1656:.
1638:.
1560:^
1539:.
1512:^
1429:^
708:);
702:\n
687:()
635:,
492:);
474:++
403:);
388:++
331:.
48:.
1928:.
1909:.
1893:.
1878:.
1844:.
1831:.
1827::
1821:1
1786:.
1762:.
1692:.
1667:.
1617:.
1589:.
1554:.
1524:.
1506:.
1455:.
1221:)
1215:(
1210:)
1206:(
1188:.
771:.
759:.
747:.
738:.
732:.
726:.
711:}
696:(
690:{
652:C
637:C
598:)
594:(
590:.
584:.
495:}
486:(
480:{
477:)
471:i
468:;
459:i
456:;
453:0
450:=
447:i
444:(
397:(
391:)
385:i
382:;
373:i
370:;
367:0
364:=
361:i
358:(
340:C
290:(
282:(
270:)
264:(
252:)
248:(
244:.
234:.
200:)
194:(
189:)
185:(
175:·
168:·
161:·
154:·
127:.
98:)
94:(
84:.
55:)
51:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
