935:. The 17 line version is a particular dialect of COBOL once used on CP/M. (I think similar variants are not uncommon; when I briefly touched on COBOL many years ago at school, I'm pretty sure we were told all the division declarations are mandatory even if they are empty, just as seems to be done here.) Since the point of the example is to show that languages can differ greatly in verbosity, it seems perfectly reasonable to use an especially verbose variant so long as it isn't contrived -- although perhaps we should label it with the actual dialect name, to avoid pointless offence to much put-upon COBOL supporters. Actually, I think a strong argument can be made that the "short" example is far too long; after all, there are plenty of quite common languages in which "Hello World" is a one-liner.
659:
produce more output, whereas the context skews towards efficiency, quality or some analogue which suggests the concept of "doing more with less". Then again, the discussion actually considers two aspects: two different code artifacts written to do the same task, and the different qualities of the respective programmers who produce the code artifacts. What is a good term to describe a worker who is good at producing higher quality products or tools? More specifically, what is a word for the measure of said ability? "Productive" is not a good word for that measure.
810:(Note that Wheeler's notation is a bit misleading -- it appears (to me) to indicate that 420,000 SLOC are used on the on board computer and that 1.4 million SLOC are used on the ground. But that's incorrect. The 1.4 million SLOC software is the size of the *testbed software* used to certify the 420,000 SLOC actually used on the Shuttle. In other words, it's *all* for the on board software. Wheeler doesn't actually say anything wrong, it's just that it's a brief note in a table and not explained.).
941:
all, which is not necessarily a good measure of verbosity for particular tasks. It might be better to use an example which actually highlights the strengths and / or domain impedance mismatches of particular languages. (And to avoid someone complaining, "yes that's hard using built-ins, but company X sells a library extension which solves it in one command!", we might specify no libraries outside the standard distribution.)
410:
253:
222:
321:
191:
345:
950:
to count how many unique IP addresses have hit the server during the life of that log file (i.e., how many unique values are found in the first field of each line.) Hopefully this would be short enough to fit into a readable example whilst still being a reasonable, not-too-contrived example. Perhaps
820:
Also, regarding the flippant comment about the "dates being all wrong" for
Windows -- this betrays a misunderstanding. The dates need not be "release dates". They are the approximate dates at which the evaluation was made on the original source code, which evolves continuously over time. Proprietary
708:
Quote: "With the advent of GUI-based languages/tools such as Visual Basic, much of development work is done by drag-and-drops and a few mouse clicks, where the programmer virtually writes no piece of code, most of the time." - that is one of the most asinine things I have ever read. It sounds like a
674:
above sample line conforms to the formatting standards used by the shop it was written in. Since printf("hello"); is pretty simple I think it would be OK, but since it is so simple this is a somewhat contrived example. (sigh...I just realized I hedge so much that I nevger actually said anything...)
1260:
As a veteran programmer, I find the statement useful even though it indulges in a bit of hyperbole. I mean, really?? One line of code for a project? The lower limit might be very hard to define, but I guess it must start somewhere and I guess it is not impossible to start a project with one line of
1155:
I agree with the relevance of the statement. In general, the higher the complexity the system, the more things that can go wrong. However, I also agree that more citation is needed. A good quality software development and defect reduction process can do wonders if applied effectively. This is
940:
Having said all that, I think "Hello, world!" is not a good example. In nearly all high-level languages the core functionality of "Hello, world!" is a single statement, so any statement count over 1 is actually a measure of the amount of syntactical cruft required to get a program up and running at
813:
Which hopefully will make it easy to check the figures' sources (or replace them with equivalents). You'll realize of course that the numbers won't match exactly because there are different methodologies used in picking exactly which lines of code should be included in the counts, when exactly the
1320:
If there is anything this article could benefit from more, it would be a section on how LOC relates to different languages. It is a relative term, so relating "apples" and "oranges" is idiotic. But, used as a tool for relating relative efforts, it sometimes has its place. That said, programming is
692:
In fact, all of the "years" are completely wrong. Windows 3.1 in 1990? No, 3.0 was 1990. 3.1 was 1991 or 1992 I think. "Windows NT" (no version) in 1995, Windows 95 in 1997, NT4 in 1998, and so on. The table is prefixed "According to Gary McGraw." Wonder where that guy got his info from? I'd
658:
When discussing the comparison of quality of code produced by different programmers, the term "productivity" is used where another term, e.g. "efficiency", may be more appropriate. This assumes that the definition of "productivity" skews towards quantity, i.e. to be more productive simply means to
673:
I would say one line of code. When counting lines in a large program it is usually done mechanically (i.e. by a program), so it isn't going to think it the way a person would. If it were reformatted it would count as two lines. That is why SLOC is a rough estimate. The question is whether the
735:
I'm uncertain why you think this is inappropriate for
Knowledge (XXG) (and I'm not sure I understand Knowledge (XXG)'s goals and rules well enough to judge that) -- but it'd be a shame, as this kind of information is awfully useful for researchers who want to study this subject. -- Terry Hancock
1527:
In the "Disadvantages" section, the use of Steve
Ballmer as an authority on writing code is like using Marie Antoinette as an authority on baking bread. I find it ironic that someone who knows so little about writing code makes such an insightful comment. But to use him as an authority totally
824:
In order to truly get SLOC for
Windows products, you would have to have inside access to the code (which is no doubt, only available under an NDA to people contracting with Microsoft). This limits who we can get such information from. The complained-about numbers appear to be taken from David
739:
The section probably should be split out into a separate topic, since (using the recent change by Dinker Charak as an example), it has turned into a list of links to programs written by people who want to advertise their work. If it were only that, I'd join the mob and add a link to
431:
821:
software is simply released at specific points on that evolution, so it's less obvious that this is true. So the dates being different from the release dates doesn't necessarily mean anything. On the other hand, I don't have the McGraw book, so I can't see what the actual claim is.
1219:"A number of experts have claimed a relationship between the number of lines of code in a program and the number of bugs that it contains" -- IIRC D.J. Bernstein is a notable example, HTH anyone willing to dig a bit (somewhat busy right now). --
825:
Wheeler's introduction to his papers, which references a "Gary McGraw (of
Cigital)" for the source. However, *in* the papers, he uses the Schneier citation I've listed above (so I think it's probably a more reliable source).
1176:
The related term, KLoC, used to redirect to this article, but now it sends one to Poland :), and KLOC sends one to a radio station. I've added disambiguation links including this article and the third on both pages, i.e.
955:(a practical and popular language, but one I've found rather impedance mismatched for this sort of task) and we can compare it with my rather simple example in a language optimised for line-oriented text processing. --
153:
1358:
In the "Measurement
Methods" section, there is a paragraph stating that blank lines are counted in physical SLOC. This, to my knowledge, is incorrect; I use Code Count at work and it doesn't count whitespace at all.
697:
I've changed the table to use the values from Andrew
Tanenbaum's "Modern Operating Systems" book. Unfortunately, this only covers the NT line, not the Win 3.1/9x products. Does anyone have accurate figures for these?
1261:
code. A 10 to 10 SLOC dynamic range seems reasonable. The only reason I even saw this article is that I am taking on a program I estimate at 10 SLOC, and I want to estimate how much time I am committing to.
1194:
However, I didn't feel comfortable adding parallel links to this page, as the main heading is SLoC, not KLoC. Therefore, my question is: do these three kloc pages deserve a disambiguation page yet?
1321:
very much like writing prose. One can be succinct and say a lot in just a few words, as well as beating around the bush and never getting to the point. As in, "being paid to write by the 'pound'."
689:"That wikipedia page is kinda funny. According to it, "Windows NT 5.0", released in 2000, contains 20M lines of code, whereas "Windows 2000", released in 2001, contains 35M. Â ::scratches head::
762:
There are several "citation requested" notes in the SLOC tables. I'm not sure which particular numbers come from which sources, but I can provide the following links to SLOC data, by category:
662:
Perhaps the distinctions between using SLOC to estimate software complexity, the measure of software quality in general, and the measure of programmer capability should be made more explicit.
455:
595:
1289:
What is "useful" is completely subjective. For example, someone working on a purposefully minimal codebase probably couldn't care less about the considerations of a larger project that they
1571:
970:
Hi
Everyone. I love COBOL and I created an account to edit this page. This program compiles under GnuCOBOL. The 17 line example is a terrible example of this modern and enjoyable language
946:
From a real-world task in which I have personally seen massive difference in verbosity of seriously proposed solutions, I would suggest something like parsing a web server log file in
846:
Which is quoting from the book: Vincent Maraia, "The Build Master: Microsoft's
Software Configuration Management Best Practices", Addison-Wesley Microsoft Technology Series, 2005.
1000:
512:
450:
834:
I had a source referencing a book by Andrew
Tanenbaum from 2001. However, that's obviously not the source for the later numbers. Probably this is (already in the references):
147:
1103:
1586:
1283:"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"
359:
1469:
1465:
1451:
777:(I say semi-independent, because I believe one author is shared between the two sources. But it was an independent study, although it used the same SLOCCount tool).
849:
The source for the Mac OS 10.4 "Leopard" release is apparently Steve Jobs himself, from a keynote speech, which is described here (including a paraphrase of Jobs):
1296:
Also does this sentence provide any kind of value or insight into the concept of SLOC? I don't think it does. It has very little surrounding context or relavence.
1286:
It goes without saying that the ranges between these examples are on a different scale. But does that really relate to usefulness at all? If so, "useful" to whom?
1581:
311:
79:
1405:
1095:
44:
717:
I think this section deserves to be removed. This is an uncommented collection of links that does not provide any help and does not belong into wikipedia.
1107:
1566:
1556:
557:
335:
301:
1099:
372:
354:
236:
973:
identification division. program-id. hello . procedure division. display "hello wolrd" goback . end program hello .
85:
1551:
531:
277:
1561:
1340:
Are there any updates for Debian 6 with respect to LOC. For Debian 7, wheezy, there seem to be some people who did the count in February 2012
503:
1366:
1089:
620:
1020:
956:
30:
484:
1306:
1157:
260:
227:
99:
1066:
330:
232:
168:
104:
20:
988:
135:
74:
1591:
1035:
576:
1004:
541:
422:
202:
1576:
465:
65:
1406:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140223013701/http://blog.james.rcpt.to/2012/02/13/debian-wheezy-us19-billion-your-price-free/
1415:
586:
1512:
551:
129:
1421:
879:
The Sun Solaris 7.5 meg figure is from the Debian 3.1 paper, and that refers to an earlier paper for those numbers.
850:
801:(even with the anchor, you'll have to scroll down a bit to find this information buried midway through the article)
1409:
1341:
1251:
873:
From Sun, there is a claim that *Star Office* was 7.5 Million SLOC when it was first released as OpenOffice, e.g.:
841:
109:
1370:
613:
125:
1468:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
960:
1024:
522:
208:
190:
1310:
1503:
1397:
1119:
683:
175:
1362:
1302:
1247:
1070:
1062:
976:
1161:
984:
273:
718:
55:
1533:
1487:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1475:
1326:
1266:
1057:
276:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1396:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
70:
1056:
I found this plain text transcription, and if it is faithful and complete, the citation is apocryphal
882:
855:
1442:
1389:
980:
24:
441:
1345:
709:
hippy ideal from the mid-70s of 4GL languages. Where is my jetpack? They promised me one by now!!!
699:
161:
727:
141:
1205:
1145:
1114:
1043:
1472:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1156:
merely a rule of thumb. It seems logical, but SLOC doesn't necessarily translate to quality.--
1488:
835:
947:
920:
51:
1140:
The page doesn't have much to do with source size (or even security). Just a rambling rant.
790:
787:
567:
1529:
1322:
1262:
493:
1495:
1028:
1454:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1416:
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/What-s-new-in-Linux-2-6-32-872271.html?view=print
669:
Why is that ambiguous? Because it has more than one semicolon? -from a non-programmer
409:
1494:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1461:
913:
shorter Hello World, so what's the deal with that 17-line beast in this SLOC article?
766:
432:
Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
1545:
1224:
1201:
1141:
1039:
891:
I'm not sure how to add a citation, but the citation for Paint.NET lines of code is:
749:
1528:
discredits the article in the eyes of anyone who knows anything about the subject.
952:
916:
796:
666:
for (i=0; i<100; ++i) {printf("hello");} /* How many lines of code is this? */
1422:
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/What-s-new-in-Linux-3-6-1714690.html?page=3
868:
851:
http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/08/09/wwdc-2006-keynote-detailed-report
772:
1410:
http://blog.james.rcpt.to/2012/02/13/debian-wheezy-us19-billion-your-price-free/
1342:
http://blog.james.rcpt.to/2012/02/13/debian-wheezy-us19-billion-your-price-free/
805:
1537:
1517:
1374:
1348:
1330:
1314:
1270:
1255:
1228:
1209:
1165:
1149:
1125:
1074:
1047:
1008:
992:
964:
924:
885:
874:
858:
842:
http://www.knowing.net/PermaLink,guid,c4bdc793-bbcf-4fff-8167-3eb1f4f4ef99.aspx
752:
730:
721:
702:
320:
252:
221:
1460:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
932:
675:
1198:
474:
269:
1090:
en:wikiquote:Talk:Bill Gates#Measuring aircraft building progress by weight
344:
1242:
Software projects can vary between 1 to 100,000,000 or more lines of code.
817:
I haven't found anything on Mac OSs or FreeBSD, though I'm still looking.
765:
Five versions of Debian (from 2.0 "Hamm" to 3.1 "Sarge") may be found at:
1220:
265:
895:
where it says, "Interested in looking at almost 140,000 lines of code?"
741:
1058:
http://www.managementparadise.com/uploads_blog/43000/42898/0_9550.pdf
1034:
apparently (I googled it a while back, and iirc it was attributed to
693:
hardly believe his LOC counts if he can't even get the years right."
892:
1112:, but I did not find the phrase or anything similar to it. Cheers,
904:
999:
the last line is unnecessary as nothing is executed after goback
780:
Data for Red Hat 6.2 and 7.1 were published by David Wheeler at:
1188:
1181:
781:
795:
In it, he cites the following references for Windows versions:
867:
Open Solaris is claimed to be 10 million SLOC by Sun in 2005.
840:
However, there's another book with similar information in it:
682:
The SLOC table for Windows appears to be very wrong (see this
550:
Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see
184:
15:
804:
and also this source for NASA Space Shuttle flight software:
1427:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
836:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1942598204;pp;1
771:
Another semi-independent paper evaluated just 2.2 "Potato":
343:
319:
1400:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1344:
which could be incorporated into the article. Greetings --
791:
http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat62-v1/redhat62sloc.html
788:
http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html
1393:
1299:
Consensus to remove/clean up/make less subjective?...
398:
393:
388:
383:
160:
264:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1464:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1088:Someone also asked about this phrase on Wikiquote:
767:
http://libresoft.dat.escet.urjc.es/debian-counting/
174:
456:Computer science articles needing expert attention
1572:Start-Class software articles of High-importance
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
797:http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0003.html#8
1450:This message was posted before February 2018.
1019:Is there any source for Bill Gate's citation?
869:http://www.boostmarketing.com/story.php?id=474
773:http://people.debian.org/~jgb/debian-counting/
596:WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
806:http://books.nap.edu/html/statsoft/chap2.html
8:
875:http://java.sun.com/developer/jcpopensource/
513:Computer science articles without infoboxes
451:Computer science articles needing attention
188:
1360:
1060:
1038:- but I don't have a copy to verify that)
974:
417:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
367:
216:
1388:I have just modified 3 external links on
1587:Low-importance Computer science articles
1187:For the village in northern Poland, see
218:
1582:Start-Class Computer science articles
1439:to let others know (documentation at
286:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computing
7:
258:This article is within the scope of
713:Programs for counting lines of code
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1246:...doesn't say anything, does it?
532:Timeline of computing 2020–present
14:
1567:High-importance software articles
1557:Low-importance Computing articles
1392:. Please take a moment to review
1280:I take issue with this sentence:
893:http://getpaint.net/download.html
558:Computing articles needing images
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1172:KLoC disambiguation page needed?
931:There's a discussion of this at
684:comment on Larry Osterman's blog
408:
251:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1420:Corrected formatting/usage for
1414:Corrected formatting/usage for
1036:Business @ the Speed of Thought
306:This article has been rated as
1552:Start-Class Computing articles
1009:12:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
1001:2A02:1406:F:86D5:0:0:3A07:E564
933:Talk:COBOL#Bogus lines deleted
289:Template:WikiProject Computing
1:
1562:Start-Class software articles
1538:14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
1331:14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
1271:14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
1215:Relation with security faults
1210:13:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
951:if someone could try this in
886:22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
859:21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
782:http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/
753:12:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
731:01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
722:21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
612:Tag all relevant articles in
352:This article is supported by
328:This article is supported by
280:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1518:05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
1375:15:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
1075:11:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
1048:13:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
1029:13:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
925:21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
786:Direct links to the papers:
678:01:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
621:WikiProject Computer science
373:WikiProject Computer science
355:WikiProject Computer science
1180:For the radio station, see
1150:20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
744:, for instance. There are
552:List of computer scientists
1608:
1481:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1385:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1349:13:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
1256:15:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
1237:Uninformative introduction
1186:
1179:
1166:01:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
993:18:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
703:11:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
312:project's importance scale
1092:. I searched Gates' book
814:data were measured, etc.
614:Category:Computer science
366:
351:
327:
305:
246:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1315:09:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
1229:13:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
1126:14:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
1014:
965:06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
616:and sub-categories with
1381:External links modified
1592:All Computing articles
577:Computer science stubs
348:
324:
274:information technology
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1577:All Software articles
864:Okay, another issue:
831:More on citations...
347:
323:
261:WikiProject Computing
201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
1462:regular verification
1390:Source lines of code
1015:Bill Gate's citation
371:Things you can help
331:WikiProject Software
105:No original research
25:Source lines of code
1523:Steve Ballmer Quote
1452:After February 2018
1431:parameter below to
1276:Subjective language
1506:InternetArchiveBot
1457:InternetArchiveBot
349:
325:
292:Computing articles
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1482:
1377:
1365:comment added by
1305:comment added by
1123:
1111:
1077:
1065:comment added by
995:
979:comment added by
948:Common Log Format
828:-- Terry Hancock
651:
650:
647:
646:
643:
642:
639:
638:
635:
634:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1599:
1516:
1507:
1480:
1479:
1458:
1446:
1317:
1248:Andreas Lundblad
1124:
1117:
1093:
625:
619:
494:Computer science
423:Article requests
412:
405:
404:
368:
294:
293:
290:
287:
284:
255:
248:
247:
242:
239:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1607:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1542:
1541:
1525:
1510:
1505:
1473:
1466:have permission
1456:
1440:
1398:this simple FaQ
1383:
1367:199.209.144.220
1356:
1338:
1300:
1278:
1239:
1217:
1192:
1185:
1174:
1138:
1113:
1017:
996:
901:
760:
715:
656:
654:Unnamed section
631:
628:
623:
617:
605:Project-related
600:
581:
562:
536:
517:
498:
479:
460:
436:
403:
336:High-importance
291:
288:
285:
282:
281:
240:
230:
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1605:
1603:
1595:
1594:
1589:
1584:
1579:
1574:
1569:
1564:
1559:
1554:
1544:
1543:
1524:
1521:
1500:
1499:
1492:
1425:
1424:
1418:
1412:
1404:Added archive
1382:
1379:
1355:
1352:
1337:
1334:
1277:
1274:
1244:
1243:
1238:
1235:
1233:
1216:
1213:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1051:
1050:
1021:130.232.32.155
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
972:
968:
967:
957:203.20.101.203
943:
942:
937:
936:
907:article has a
900:
897:
888:Terry Hancock
861:Terry Hancock
759:
756:
748:such programs
719:84.191.231.103
714:
711:
706:
705:
680:
679:
664:
655:
652:
649:
648:
645:
644:
641:
640:
637:
636:
633:
632:
630:
629:
627:
626:
609:
601:
599:
598:
592:
582:
580:
579:
573:
563:
561:
560:
555:
547:
537:
535:
534:
528:
518:
516:
515:
509:
499:
497:
496:
490:
480:
478:
477:
471:
461:
459:
458:
453:
447:
437:
435:
434:
428:
416:
414:
413:
402:
401:
396:
391:
386:
380:
377:
376:
364:
363:
360:Low-importance
350:
340:
339:
326:
316:
315:
308:Low-importance
304:
298:
297:
295:
278:the discussion
256:
244:
243:
241:Low‑importance
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1604:
1593:
1590:
1588:
1585:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1575:
1573:
1570:
1568:
1565:
1563:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1553:
1550:
1549:
1547:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1522:
1520:
1519:
1514:
1509:
1508:
1497:
1493:
1490:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1477:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1423:
1419:
1417:
1413:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1380:
1378:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1353:
1351:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1335:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1318:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:81.157.211.54
1304:
1297:
1294:
1292:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1275:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1214:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1183:
1178:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1135:
1127:
1121:
1116:
1115:Manifestation
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:
994:
990:
986:
982:
978:
971:
966:
962:
958:
954:
949:
945:
944:
939:
938:
934:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
912:
911:
906:
898:
896:
894:
889:
887:
884:
880:
877:
876:
871:
870:
865:
862:
860:
857:
853:
852:
847:
844:
843:
838:
837:
832:
829:
826:
822:
818:
815:
811:
808:
807:
802:
799:
798:
793:
792:
789:
784:
783:
778:
775:
774:
769:
768:
763:
757:
755:
754:
751:
747:
743:
737:
733:
732:
729:
724:
723:
720:
712:
710:
704:
701:
696:
695:
694:
690:
687:
685:
677:
672:
671:
670:
667:
663:
660:
653:
622:
615:
611:
610:
608:
606:
602:
597:
594:
593:
591:
589:
588:
583:
578:
575:
574:
572:
570:
569:
564:
559:
556:
553:
549:
548:
546:
544:
543:
538:
533:
530:
529:
527:
525:
524:
519:
514:
511:
510:
508:
506:
505:
500:
495:
492:
491:
489:
487:
486:
481:
476:
473:
472:
470:
468:
467:
462:
457:
454:
452:
449:
448:
446:
444:
443:
438:
433:
430:
429:
427:
425:
424:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
406:
400:
397:
395:
392:
390:
387:
385:
382:
381:
379:
378:
374:
370:
369:
365:
361:
358:(assessed as
357:
356:
346:
342:
341:
337:
334:(assessed as
333:
332:
322:
318:
317:
313:
309:
303:
300:
299:
296:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
257:
254:
250:
249:
245:
238:
234:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1526:
1504:
1501:
1476:source check
1455:
1449:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1426:
1387:
1384:
1361:— Preceding
1357:
1339:
1319:
1301:— Preceding
1298:
1295:
1293:working on.
1290:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1259:
1245:
1232:
1218:
1196:
1193:
1175:
1158:74.107.74.39
1139:
1061:— Preceding
1018:
975:— Preceding
969:
953:Visual Basic
914:
909:
908:
902:
890:
881:
878:
872:
866:
863:
854:
848:
845:
839:
833:
830:
827:
823:
819:
816:
812:
809:
803:
800:
794:
785:
779:
776:
770:
764:
761:
745:
738:
734:
725:
716:
707:
691:
688:
681:
668:
665:
661:
657:
604:
603:
587:Unreferenced
585:
584:
566:
565:
540:
539:
521:
520:
502:
501:
483:
482:
464:
463:
440:
439:
421:
420:
353:
329:
307:
259:
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1530:Loyalgadfly
1443:Sourcecheck
1354:Blank Lines
1323:Loyalgadfly
1263:Loyalgadfly
1067:89.2.141.30
883:68.93.224.4
856:68.93.224.4
199:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
1546:Categories
1513:Report bug
1336:Debian LOC
1136:Geer quote
981:HalfMadDad
1496:this tool
1489:this tool
1199:Talk:KLOC
758:Citations
726:I agree.
475:Computing
283:Computing
270:computing
266:computers
228:Computing
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1502:Cheers.—
1363:unsigned
1303:unsigned
1202:Pdebonte
1142:TEDickey
1063:unsigned
1040:Tedickey
989:contribs
977:unsigned
917:j.engelh
750:Tedickey
700:Bakery2k
523:Maintain
466:Copyedit
233:Software
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1429:checked
1394:my edit
742:c_count
728:Vorratt
504:Infobox
442:Cleanup
389:history
310:on the
237:CompSci
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1437:failed
1346:hroest
1291:aren't
485:Expand
272:, and
205:scale.
126:Google
1197:q.v.
905:COBOL
899:COBOL
676:RJFJR
568:Stubs
542:Photo
399:purge
394:watch
375:with:
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1534:talk
1433:true
1371:talk
1327:talk
1311:talk
1267:talk
1252:talk
1225:talk
1206:talk
1189:Kloc
1182:KLOC
1162:talk
1146:talk
1120:talk
1071:talk
1044:talk
1025:talk
1005:talk
985:talk
961:talk
921:talk
910:much
903:The
746:many
384:edit
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1470:RfC
1447:).
1435:or
1408:to
1221:Gvy
686:):
302:Low
176:TWL
1548::
1536:)
1483:.
1478:}}
1474:{{
1445:}}
1441:{{
1373:)
1329:)
1313:)
1269:)
1254:)
1227:)
1208:)
1164:)
1148:)
1106:,
1102:,
1098:,
1073:)
1046:)
1027:)
1007:)
991:)
987:•
963:)
923:)
624:}}
618:{{
362:).
338:).
268:,
235:/
231::
156:)
54:;
1532:(
1515:)
1511:(
1498:.
1491:.
1369:(
1325:(
1309:(
1265:(
1250:(
1223:(
1204:(
1191:.
1184:.
1160:(
1144:(
1122:)
1118:(
1110:)
1108:4
1104:3
1100:2
1096:1
1094:(
1069:(
1042:(
1023:(
1003:(
983:(
959:(
919:(
915:-
607::
590::
571::
554:)
545::
526::
507::
488::
469::
445::
426::
314:.
211::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
