Forums : Feedback Forum
Dear Open Hub Users,
We’re excited to announce that we will be moving the Open Hub Forum to
https://community.synopsys.com/s/black-duck-open-hub.
Beginning immediately, users can head over,
register,
get technical help and discuss issue pertinent to the Open Hub. Registered users can also subscribe to Open Hub announcements here.
On May 1, 2020, we will be freezing https://www.openhub.net/forums and users will not be able to create new discussions. If you have any questions and concerns, please email us at
[email protected]
SBCL code badly miscounted
SBCL is missing most of its source code from its Ohloh project page (http://www.ohloh.net/projects/5299). None of the Lisp code is counted, despite other projects written in Lisp being counted. This is what I posted about it about 20 days ago in the Mostly Written In...
thread:
SBCL (http://www.ohloh.net/projects/5299) is written in Common Lisp, but Ohloh says it's primarily written in C/C++.
We have C components:
:; find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs wc -l | tail -1
34115 total
but they are dwarfed by the amount of code in Lisp:
:; find . -name '*.lisp' | xargs wc -l | tail -1
395570 total
Commits to .lisp files don't seem to be counted as Lisp either.
In fact, those 400,000 lines of code don't even show up in the code report:
http://www.ohloh.net/projects/5299/analyses/latest
Also:
By the way, if you want to try and differentiate Common Lisp from random generic Lisp, Common Lisp sources usually have a line that looks like one of these:
(in-package :cl-user)
(CL:IN-PACKAGE MY-PACKAGE
)
(common-lisp:in-package #:this-is-rather-long)
so maybe looking for a line like:
/^(([^)]*:)?in-package\s/i
would be a decent tact? It won't get everything, but it'll get a lot.
There's no standard for file extensions, but *.lisp is quite common, *.cl is also used, and I believe *.lsp is used by 8.3 holdovers.
SBCL in addition uses *.lisp-expr for single Lisp expressions, but if those didn't get counted it wouldn't be the end of the world.
It's a little frustrating that the project is only listed as a tenth of the size it really is, especially since other Lisp code in other projects seems to get counted.
Not entirely unrelated, but note also that the CLISP project (http://www.ohloh.net/projects/290) appears to be mostly written in shell script. They have a lot of C source files in there (with an odd file name, ending in .d instead of .c. WC reports:
wc -l */.lisp | tail -1
135117 total
wc -l */.h */.c */.d
318830 total
The configure script is pretty large, and they do have 20kLines of shell script in there, but I think that this should be mainly C/C++ as well (-:
Ditto for GRT Raytracer -- it's written in Common Lisp, but appears as a shell script project...
CMUCL also seems to be missing a 90% of it's source code -- the lisp parts.
Situation remains -- if you just didn't get to it, fair enough.
Just so that this doesn't drop of the radar.
Any progress expected on this?
ok - sorry for the delay,
I've re-analyzed CMUCL and GRT Raytracer - and they both show a lot more lisp. SBCL is currently updating too - should be better soon.
SBCL now shows a lot of of Lisp. Brian - any objections to changing the SBCL description?
oops - almost forgot about CLISP. It's going on now...
Looking good. I fixed the SBCL description.