619:
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
1300:, 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.
1339:, 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.
124:
1185:
572:
226:
36:
77:
1274:
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
952:, 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).
1289:
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.
1247:
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
959:
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.
337:
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
1284:
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
1303:
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
618:
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.
1311:
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
1273:
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
1334:
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
1307:
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
1288:
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
817:
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
357:
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.
1355:
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
553:
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
533:) 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.
345:
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.
1269:
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
808:
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,
1255:
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
558:". 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.
1610:
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.
1356:
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.
1248:
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.
349:
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
844:
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.
960:
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.
1304:
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.
1308:
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.
840:. 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
1259:
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.
626:
SLOC counting exhibits further accuracy issues at comparing programs written in different languages unless adjustment factors are applied to normalize languages. Various
1668:
1251:
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.
1719:
1614:
1281:
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.
821:
There are several cost, schedule, and effort estimation models which use SLOC as an input parameter, including the widely used
Constructive Cost Model (
1872:
598:
582:
358:
However, SLOC measures are often stated without giving their definition, and logical SLOC can often be significantly different from physical SLOC.
1956:
1866:
1376:
1925:
1366:
98:
85:
1547:
141:
49:
814:
1503:
1945:
1917:
1228:
277:
207:
63:
188:
1546:
González-Barahona, Jesús M.; Miguel A. Ortuño Pérez; Pedro de las Heras Quirós; José Centeno González; Vicente Matellán
Olivera.
810:
160:
1869:
Resource
Standard Metrics (RSM) defines "effective lines of code" as a realistics code metric independent of programming style.
1371:
586:
240:
236:
1814:
Forecasting Field Defect Rates Using a
Combined Time-based and Metric–based Approach a Case Study of OpenBSD (CMU-ISRI-05-125)
1195:
530:
145:
317:. SLOC is typically used to predict the amount of effort that will be required to develop a program, as well as to estimate
167:
1823:
1715:
1433:
174:
444:
Depending on the programmer and coding standards, the above "line" of code could be written on many separate lines:
1618:
1414:
1586:
1971:
1456:
156:
55:
1691:"Linux Kernel Development: How Fast it is Going, Who is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring It"
1664:
1293:
1210:
647:
635:
350:
318:
1784:
1640:
623:, which is highly discouraged as it is more bug-prone and costly to maintain, but it results in higher SLOC.
1344:
1312:
increased complexity can lead to increased cost of maintenance and increased effort required for bug fixing.
1206:
590:
252:
134:
90:
1297:
1812:
1651:
86 million lines of source code that was ported to run on an entirely new architecture with zero hiccups.
1483:
1394:
Possibly including the whole iLife suite, not just the operating system and usually bundled applications.
1747:
1759:
1694:
1322:
354:
1555:
639:
361:
Consider this snippet of C code as an example of the ambiguity encountered when determining SLOC:
181:
334:
1929:
1848:
1913:
631:
627:
546:
525:
Even the "logical" and "physical" SLOC values can have a large number of varying definitions.
1532:
1507:
521:
1 comment line: tools must account for all code and comments regardless of comment placement.
1835:
1487:
956:
833:
541:
At the time when SLOC was introduced as a metric, the most commonly used languages, such as
310:
1252:
322:
306:
1949:
1488:
634:
would require hundreds of lines of code to perform the same task as a few characters in
1275:
1085:
841:
620:
526:
1690:
1965:
1348:
1327:
830:
550:
518:
2 logical lines of code (LLOC): what about all the work writing non-statement lines?
862:
1422:, Center for Systems and Software Engineering, University of Southern California
1046:
826:
549:, were line-oriented languages. These languages were developed at the time when
314:
123:
1839:
962:
857:
852:
According to
Vincent Maraia, the SLOC values for various operating systems in
555:
1296:
tools: with the advent of GUI-based programming languages and tools such as
853:
630:
balance brevity and clarity in different ways; as an extreme example, most
76:
1071:
837:
430:
339:
1849:"Software Size Measurement: A Framework for Counting Source Statements"
1590:
1058:
945:
542:
515:
4 physical lines of code (LOC): is placing braces work to be estimated?
17:
1873:
Effective Lines of Code eLOC Metrics for popular Open Source
Software
822:
434:
1880:
1689:
Greg Kroah-Hartman; Jonathan Corbet; Amanda McPherson (April 2012).
1213:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
949:
651:
643:
1875:
Linux Kernel 2.6.17, Firefox, Apache HTTPD, MySQL, PHP using RSM.
1336:
1895:
1413:
Vu Nguyen; Sophia Deeds-Rubin; Thomas Tan; Barry Boehm (2007),
1716:"Summary, Outlook, Statistics - The H Open: News and Features"
1317:
1178:
565:
219:
117:
70:
29:
27:
Software metric used to measure the size of a computer program
313:
by counting the number of lines in the text of the program's
1824:"From the Ground Up: The DIMACS Software Security Workshop"
1733:
1734:"Linux-Kernel durchbricht die 20-Millionen-Zeilen-Marke"
1285:
less experience does, though they use the same language.
1278:
and keep it clean will mostly reduce the lines of code.
1202:
248:
1926:"Tanenbaum outlines his vision for a grandma-proof OS"
1957:
Folklore.org: Macintosh
Stories: -2000 Lines Of Code
1946:"Metrics collection tools for C and C++ Source Code"
1615:"Debian Wheezy: US$ 19 Billion. Your price... FREE!"
1533:"More Than a Gigabuck: Estimating GNU/Linux's Size"
1434:"Quantifying the Benefits of Using Function Points"
654:(a language known for being particularly verbose).
148:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
813:automatically generate all the source code for a
1748:"a short history of lines of code (loc) metrics"
638:. The following example shows a comparison of a
1847:Park, Robert E.; et al. (31 August 1992).
1811:Li, Luo; Herbsleb, Jim; Shaw, Mary (May 2005).
1526:
1524:
1330:criticized the use of counting lines of code:
338:be clear indicators of software complexity or
1867:Definitions of Practical Source Lines of Code
1580:
1578:
1576:
1574:
1572:
1486:. Microsoft. January 11, 2011. Archived from
1451:
1449:
1447:
1445:
1443:
1441:
8:
1548:"Counting potatoes: the size of Debian 2.2"
1351:in 1982 found problems with this practice:
64:Learn how and when to remove these messages
1504:"A history of Windows - Microsoft Windows"
1641:"Live from WWDC 2006: Steve Jobs Keynote"
1229:Learn how and when to remove this message
554:productivity, even referring to such as "
449:/* Now how many lines of code is this? */
333:Many useful comparisons involve only the
278:Learn how and when to remove this message
208:Learn how and when to remove this message
656:
585:: vague phrasing that often accompanies
251:by adding descriptive text and removing
101:of all important aspects of the article.
1484:"How Many Lines of Code in Windows XP?"
1405:
1387:
1377:Cost estimation in software engineering
1896:"Counting Source Lines of Code (SLOC)"
1367:Software development effort estimation
97:Please consider expanding the lead to
417:/* How many lines of code is this? */
7:
1760:"MacPaint and QuickDraw Source Code"
1469:This in turn cites Vincent Maraia's
1457:"How Many Lines of Code in Windows?"
146:adding citations to reliable sources
1785:"Folklore.org: -2000 Lines Of Code"
955:A similar study was later made of
25:
1853:Technical Report CMU/SEI-92-TR-20
1822:McGraw, Gary (March–April 2003).
1473:as the source of the information.
811:graphical user interface builders
45:This article has multiple issues.
1722:from the original on 2013-12-19.
1714:Thorsten Leemhuis (2012-10-01).
1663:Thorsten Leemhuis (2009-12-03).
1183:
570:
429:2 logical lines of code (LLOC) (
224:
122:
75:
34:
1894:Wheeler, David A. (June 2001).
1671:from the original on 2013-12-19
1531:David A. Wheeler (2001-06-30).
1459:. Knowing.NET. December 6, 2005
1372:Estimation (project management)
325:once the software is produced.
133:needs additional citations for
89:may be too short to adequately
53:or discuss these issues on the
531:Software Engineering Institute
426:1 physical line of code (LOC),
309:used to measure the size of a
99:provide an accessible overview
1:
1817:. Carnegie-Mellon University.
944:David A. Wheeler studied the
860:product line are as follows:
1924:Howard Dahdah (2007-01-24).
1665:"What's new in Linux 2.6.32"
1506:. 2012-09-21. Archived from
818:shortcoming of this metric.
1828:IEEE Security & Privacy
1639:Jobs, Steve (August 2006).
1209:the claims made and adding
1988:
1912:(2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
1840:10.1109/MSECP.2003.1193213
815:graphical control elements
597:Such statements should be
511:In this example we have:
422:In this example we have:
1910:Modern Operating Systems
1416:A SLOC Counting Standard
764:"hello, world"
728:
683:
677:"hello, world"
671:
446:
363:
319:programming productivity
1345:Computer History Museum
802:(excluding whitespace)
253:less pertinent examples
1358:
1341:
1326:, Microsoft executive
950:Linux operating system
825:) series of models by
797:(excluding whitespace)
562:Usage of SLOC measures
157:"Source lines of code"
1908:Tanenbaum, Andrew S.
1353:
1332:
640:"hello world" program
355:programming languages
1695:The Linux Foundation
1323:Triumph of the Nerds
1165:Linux kernel pre-4.2
948:distribution of the
599:clarified or removed
291:Source lines of code
142:improve this article
1143:Linux kernel 2.6.35
1132:Linux kernel 2.6.32
1121:Linux kernel 2.6.29
935:Windows Server 2003
329:Measurement methods
249:improve the article
1879:Wheeler, David A.
1613:James Bromberger.
1585:Robles, Gregorio.
1335:money we made off
1194:possibly contains
1110:Linux kernel 2.6.0
1099:Linux kernel 2.4.2
710:"hello, world
632:assembly languages
628:computer languages
335:order of magnitude
1952:on June 19, 2020.
1587:"Debian Counting"
1343:According to the
1239:
1238:
1231:
1196:original research
1172:
1171:
942:
941:
806:
805:
616:
615:
547:assembly language
500:"hello"
411:"hello"
297:), also known as
288:
287:
280:
270:
269:
218:
217:
210:
192:
116:
115:
68:
16:(Redirected from
1979:
1972:Software metrics
1953:
1948:. Archived from
1940:
1938:
1937:
1928:. Archived from
1905:
1903:
1902:
1890:
1888:
1887:
1856:
1843:
1818:
1799:
1798:
1796:
1795:
1789:www.folklore.org
1781:
1775:
1774:
1772:
1771:
1756:
1750:
1744:
1738:
1737:
1730:
1724:
1723:
1711:
1705:
1704:
1702:
1701:
1686:
1680:
1679:
1677:
1676:
1660:
1654:
1653:
1648:
1647:
1636:
1630:
1629:
1627:
1626:
1617:. Archived from
1608:
1602:
1601:
1599:
1598:
1589:. Archived from
1582:
1567:
1566:
1564:
1563:
1554:. Archived from
1543:
1537:
1536:
1528:
1519:
1518:
1516:
1515:
1500:
1494:
1493:
1491:
1480:
1474:
1471:The Build Master
1467:
1465:
1464:
1453:
1436:
1430:
1424:
1423:
1421:
1410:
1395:
1392:
1347:Apple Developer
1234:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1214:
1211:inline citations
1187:
1186:
1179:
1154:Linux kernel 3.6
969:Operating system
963:
957:Debian GNU/Linux
869:Operating system
863:
800:Lines of code: 6
795:Lines of code: 4
790:Lines of code: 1
783:
780:
777:
774:
771:
768:
765:
762:
759:
756:
753:
750:
747:
744:
741:
738:
735:
732:
723:
720:
717:
714:
711:
708:
705:
702:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
678:
675:
657:
621:code duplication
611:
608:
602:
574:
573:
566:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
465:
462:
459:
456:
453:
450:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
388:
385:
382:
379:
376:
373:
370:
367:
311:computer program
283:
276:
265:
262:
256:
228:
227:
220:
213:
206:
202:
199:
193:
191:
150:
126:
118:
111:
108:
102:
79:
71:
60:
38:
37:
30:
21:
1987:
1986:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1962:
1961:
1943:
1935:
1933:
1923:
1900:
1898:
1893:
1885:
1883:
1878:
1863:
1846:
1821:
1810:
1807:
1805:Further reading
1802:
1793:
1791:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1769:
1767:
1758:
1757:
1753:
1745:
1741:
1736:. 30 June 2015.
1732:
1731:
1727:
1713:
1712:
1708:
1699:
1697:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1674:
1672:
1662:
1661:
1657:
1645:
1643:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1624:
1622:
1612:
1609:
1605:
1596:
1594:
1584:
1583:
1570:
1561:
1559:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1530:
1529:
1522:
1513:
1511:
1502:
1501:
1497:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1468:
1462:
1460:
1455:
1454:
1439:
1431:
1427:
1419:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1398:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1363:
1266:
1253:Function points
1244:
1235:
1224:
1218:
1215:
1200:
1188:
1184:
1177:
972:SLOC (million)
872:SLOC (million)
850:
842:function points
836:and Galorath's
801:
796:
792:(no whitespace)
791:
785:
784:
781:
778:
775:
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
757:
754:
751:
748:
745:
742:
739:
736:
733:
730:
725:
724:
721:
718:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
694:
691:
689:<stdio.h>
688:
685:
680:
679:
676:
673:
612:
606:
603:
596:
575:
571:
564:
539:
509:
508:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
481:
478:
475:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
440:1 comment line.
420:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
368:
365:
331:
323:maintainability
307:software metric
284:
273:
272:
271:
266:
260:
257:
246:
229:
225:
214:
203:
197:
194:
151:
149:
139:
127:
112:
106:
103:
96:
84:This article's
80:
39:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1985:
1983:
1975:
1974:
1964:
1963:
1960:
1959:
1954:
1941:
1921:
1906:
1891:
1876:
1870:
1862:
1861:External links
1859:
1858:
1857:
1844:
1819:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1800:
1776:
1751:
1739:
1725:
1706:
1681:
1655:
1631:
1603:
1568:
1538:
1520:
1495:
1492:on 2022-02-26.
1475:
1437:
1425:
1404:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1396:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1374:
1369:
1362:
1359:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1276:redundant code
1271:
1265:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1249:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1191:
1189:
1182:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1163:
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:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1036:
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:
940:
939:
936:
933:
929:
928:
925:
922:
918:
917:
914:
911:
907:
906:
903:
902:Windows NT 4.0
900:
896:
895:
892:
891:Windows NT 3.5
889:
885:
884:
881:
880:Windows NT 3.1
878:
874:
873:
870:
867:
849:
846:
804:
803:
798:
793:
787:
786:
731:identification
729:
726:
684:
681:
672:
668:
667:
664:
661:
614:
613:
607:September 2013
578:
576:
569:
563:
560:
538:
535:
529:(while at the
527:Robert E. Park
523:
522:
519:
516:
447:
442:
441:
438:
433:statement and
427:
364:
330:
327:
286:
285:
268:
267:
232:
230:
223:
216:
215:
130:
128:
121:
114:
113:
93:the key points
83:
81:
74:
69:
43:
42:
40:
33:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1984:
1973:
1970:
1969:
1967:
1958:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1942:
1932:on 2007-01-27
1931:
1927:
1922:
1919:
1918:0-13-092641-8
1915:
1911:
1907:
1897:
1892:
1882:
1877:
1874:
1871:
1868:
1865:
1864:
1860:
1854:
1850:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1820:
1816:
1815:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1790:
1786:
1780:
1777:
1765:
1761:
1755:
1752:
1749:
1743:
1740:
1735:
1729:
1726:
1721:
1717:
1710:
1707:
1696:
1692:
1685:
1682:
1670:
1666:
1659:
1656:
1652:
1642:
1635:
1632:
1621:on 2014-02-23
1620:
1616:
1607:
1604:
1593:on 2013-03-14
1592:
1588:
1581:
1579:
1577:
1575:
1573:
1569:
1558:on 2008-05-03
1557:
1553:
1549:
1542:
1539:
1534:
1527:
1525:
1521:
1510:on 2012-09-21
1509:
1505:
1499:
1496:
1490:
1485:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1458:
1452:
1450:
1448:
1446:
1444:
1442:
1438:
1435:
1429:
1426:
1418:
1417:
1409:
1406:
1400:
1391:
1388:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1373:
1370:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1352:
1350:
1349:Bill Atkinson
1346:
1340:
1338:
1331:
1329:
1328:Steve Ballmer
1325:
1324:
1319:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1264:Disadvantages
1263:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1233:
1230:
1222:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1198:
1197:
1192:This section
1190:
1181:
1180:
1174:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1160:
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:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1041:
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:
961:
958:
953:
951:
947:
937:
934:
931:
930:
926:
923:
920:
919:
916:more than 29
915:
912:
909:
908:
904:
901:
898:
897:
893:
890:
887:
886:
882:
879:
876:
875:
871:
868:
865:
864:
861:
859:
855:
847:
845:
843:
839:
835:
832:
831:PRICE Systems
828:
824:
819:
816:
812:
799:
794:
789:
788:
727:
682:
670:
669:
665:
662:
659:
658:
655:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
624:
622:
610:
600:
594:
592:
588:
584:
579:This article
577:
568:
567:
561:
559:
557:
552:
551:punched cards
548:
544:
536:
534:
532:
528:
520:
517:
514:
513:
512:
445:
439:
436:
432:
428:
425:
424:
423:
362:
359:
356:
352:
347:
343:
341:
336:
328:
326:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:lines of code
296:
292:
282:
279:
264:
254:
250:
244:
242:
238:
233:This article
231:
222:
221:
212:
209:
201:
198:February 2010
190:
187:
183:
180:
176:
173:
169:
166:
162:
159: –
158:
154:
153:Find sources:
147:
143:
137:
136:
131:This article
129:
125:
120:
119:
110:
100:
94:
92:
87:
82:
78:
73:
72:
67:
65:
58:
57:
52:
51:
46:
41:
32:
31:
19:
1950:the original
1944:C. M. Lott.
1934:. Retrieved
1930:the original
1909:
1899:. Retrieved
1884:. Retrieved
1852:
1834:(2): 59–66.
1831:
1827:
1813:
1792:. Retrieved
1788:
1779:
1768:. Retrieved
1766:. 2010-07-18
1763:
1754:
1742:
1728:
1709:
1698:. Retrieved
1684:
1673:. Retrieved
1658:
1650:
1644:. Retrieved
1634:
1623:. Retrieved
1619:the original
1606:
1595:. Retrieved
1591:the original
1560:. Retrieved
1556:the original
1551:
1541:
1512:. Retrieved
1508:the original
1498:
1489:the original
1478:
1470:
1461:. Retrieved
1428:
1415:
1408:
1390:
1354:
1342:
1333:
1321:
1320:documentary
1315:
1298:Visual Basic
1225:
1216:
1193:
1086:Linux kernel
954:
943:
913:Windows 2000
851:
820:
807:
625:
617:
604:
591:unverifiable
583:weasel words
580:
540:
524:
510:
443:
421:
360:
348:
344:
332:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
274:
258:
247:Please help
235:may contain
234:
204:
195:
185:
178:
171:
164:
152:
140:Please help
135:verification
132:
104:
88:
86:lead section
61:
54:
48:
47:Please help
44:
1881:"SLOCCount"
1256:experience.
1047:OpenSolaris
827:Barry Boehm
642:written in
593:information
556:card images
437:statement),
315:source code
1936:2007-01-29
1901:2003-08-12
1886:2003-08-12
1794:2021-04-15
1770:2021-04-15
1700:2012-04-10
1675:2009-12-24
1646:2007-02-16
1625:2014-02-07
1597:2007-02-16
1562:2003-08-12
1552:debian.org
1514:2021-03-26
1463:2010-08-30
1401:References
1292:Advent of
1242:Advantages
1219:April 2011
1203:improve it
1162:2015-06-30
1035:Debian 7.0
1024:Debian 5.0
1013:Debian 4.0
1002:Debian 3.1
991:Debian 3.0
980:Debian 2.2
924:Windows XP
858:Windows NT
740:program-id
241:irrelevant
168:newspapers
107:April 2012
50:improve it
1207:verifying
1091:0.010239
854:Microsoft
752:procedure
581:contains
340:man-hours
237:excessive
91:summarize
56:talk page
1966:Category
1720:Archived
1669:Archived
1361:See also
1072:Mac OS X
838:SEER-SEM
829:et al.,
761:display
755:division
734:division
686:#include
305:), is a
261:May 2012
243:examples
1316:In the
1270:effort.
1201:Please
1175:Utility
1059:FreeBSD
946:Red Hat
848:Example
776:program
767:goback
543:FORTRAN
537:Origins
182:scholar
18:Kaylock
1916:
1746:IFPUG
1432:IFPUG
983:55–59
905:11–12
834:True S
823:COCOMO
716:"
704:printf
666:COBOL
650:, and
587:biased
494:printf
435:printf
405:printf
353:-like
184:
177:
170:
163:
155:
1420:(PDF)
1383:Notes
1168:20.2
1157:15.9
1146:13.5
1135:12.6
1124:11.0
779:hello
746:hello
674:PRINT
660:BASIC
652:COBOL
644:BASIC
189:JSTOR
175:books
1914:ISBN
1337:OS/2
1151:2012
1140:2010
1129:2009
1118:2009
1113:5.2
1107:2003
1102:2.4
1096:2001
1088:0.01
1082:1991
1074:10.4
1068:2005
1063:8.8
1051:9.7
1043:2009
1038:419
1032:2012
1027:324
1021:2009
1016:283
1010:2007
1005:215
999:2005
994:104
988:2002
977:2000
966:Year
932:2003
921:2001
910:2000
899:1996
894:7–8
888:1994
883:4–5
877:1993
866:Year
695:main
545:and
473:<
387:<
295:SLOC
161:news
1836:doi
1764:CHM
1318:PBS
1294:GUI
1205:by
1077:86
938:50
927:45
856:'s
773:end
692:int
636:APL
589:or
476:100
452:for
431:for
390:100
366:for
321:or
303:LOC
239:or
144:by
1968::
1851:.
1830:.
1826:.
1787:.
1762:.
1718:.
1693:.
1667:.
1649:.
1571:^
1550:.
1523:^
1440:^
719:);
713:\n
698:()
646:,
503:);
485:++
414:);
399:++
342:.
59:.
1939:.
1920:.
1904:.
1889:.
1855:.
1842:.
1838::
1832:1
1797:.
1773:.
1703:.
1678:.
1628:.
1600:.
1565:.
1535:.
1517:.
1466:.
1232:)
1226:(
1221:)
1217:(
1199:.
782:.
770:.
758:.
749:.
743:.
737:.
722:}
707:(
701:{
663:C
648:C
609:)
605:(
601:.
595:.
506:}
497:(
491:{
488:)
482:i
479:;
470:i
467:;
464:0
461:=
458:i
455:(
408:(
402:)
396:i
393:;
384:i
381:;
378:0
375:=
372:i
369:(
351:C
301:(
293:(
281:)
275:(
263:)
259:(
255:.
245:.
211:)
205:(
200:)
196:(
186:·
179:·
172:·
165:·
138:.
109:)
105:(
95:.
66:)
62:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
