Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No, HealthCare.gov Doesn't Require 500 Million Lines of Code

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the but-somebody-on-the-teevee-said-so dept.

Government 142

itwbennett writes: "Half a billion lines of code for a transactional website — more than five times as much code as that behind OS X — just didn't pass the sniff test. But just how many lines of code does it take to generate HealthCare.gov? This question came up on Reddit again last week and it appears that we may now have an answer. One commenter who claimed to have worked on HealthCare.gov as part of the post launch clean-up crew at the end of 2013, provided counts of the lines of code behind HealthCare.gov, broken down by programming/markup language."

cancel ×

142 comments

A reddit link? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112517)

Wow, full circle. Slashdot stories are now reddit links. Not implying anything. Just wow.

Re:A reddit link? (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47112595)

Not implying anything.

You also post without the intent of communicating? Me too. Let's be friends.

*I'm not actually implying we should be friends.

Re:A reddit link? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112689)

Not only that, but you need to go to the link to get the number. They could have just posted that in the summary. Typical click bait. Fuck 'em

Posting AC due to recent politically motivated mod bomb attempts on my account. Fuck the moderators also

-F

Re:A reddit link? (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 months ago | (#47112769)

You could have posted it in your comment too....

Re:A reddit link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113095)

I don't enable click bait sites, so I don't know the number of lines, but I suspect each line costs around ten dollars of taxpayer money.

Re:A reddit link? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47115869)

Wait, Reddit s click bait? I was under the impression it was 100x more relevant than /. here in 2014.

Re:A reddit link? (2)

Cwix (1671282) | about 2 months ago | (#47114747)

The user who posted the numbers rounds out by saying 5 - 15 million lines of code. (It is a guess as his numbers only included part of the project.)

Re:A reddit link? (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 2 months ago | (#47113291)

And now to go post this story on reddit...

Reddit, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112535)

You know slashdot is no longer relevant when it has to link to reddit for it's content.

Re:Reddit, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112683)

500 million lines of code, half of which were for the extra apostrophes.

it's means it is.

That too hard to grasp?

Now we know the metric (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112541)

Take ideas of Obama's critics on health care, global warming, and socialism, dilute by about 99%, and you're getting close to the truth.

646 lines of Perl? (5, Funny)

angularbanjo (1521611) | about 2 months ago | (#47112545)

That much Perl?
That's probably the whole app there, with each line being around 10,000 characters of obfuscated self-referencing goodness.

The rest is just quotes from Tolkien.

Re: 646 lines of Perl? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112767)

I like the 25 lines of VB. I'd pay money to see what those are.

Re: 646 lines of Perl? (1)

heezer7 (708308) | about 2 months ago | (#47113099)

Probably code behind to the 1 asp.net file.

Re:646 lines of Perl? (1)

babylon93 (611333) | about 2 months ago | (#47112775)

You can do anything in 11 lines of Perl. Clearly, if HealthCare.gov had been written in Perl and still took 500,000,000 lines to do so, it would indicate that they had hired on the team responsible for building [http://www.otrs.com/ OTRS] because...OMG.

Re:646 lines of Perl? (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 months ago | (#47112887)

Let's talk about the 48 DOS batch files with 849 lines of "code" between them. <full body shudder>

Re:646 lines of Perl? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113451)

Build scripts.

No really that's about right for them to be build scripts.

Re:646 lines of Perl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113925)

The last time I saw DOS build scripts it was for Microfocus COBOL.

Re:646 lines of Perl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47115829)

We're using .cmd files in our build scripts for about that many lines in our medical software. Could have well have been .bat files.

Re:646 lines of Perl? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 months ago | (#47113457)

Holy shit. How the fuck did that happen?

Re:646 lines of Perl? (3, Funny)

wonderboss (952111) | about 2 months ago | (#47112891)

It originally contained no Perl.
One of the experts they hired to fix it, rewrote the entire front end Perl.
They left the old source code lying around just to help hide the Perl.

Re:646 lines of Perl? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112937)

It originally contained no Perl.
One of the experts they hired to fix it, rewrote the entire front end Perl.
They left the old source code lying around just to help hide the Perl.

They liked their code, and they got to keep it.

Lucky them.

Re:646 lines of Perl? (3, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | about 2 months ago | (#47113635)

One of the experts they hired to fix it, rewrote the entire front end Perl.

So, what's the other 500 lines, then?

Re:646 lines of Perl? (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 2 months ago | (#47113811)

The contract also required it to be commented. Unfortunately the expert only got part way though that before reaching the deadline.

Re:646 lines of Perl? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 months ago | (#47114409)

They left the old source code lying around just to get a cut of the original vendors paycheck.

FTFY!

Re:646 lines of Perl? (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 months ago | (#47113053)

That much Perl?

Yeah I'm surprised that they were 20 lines short.

Re:646 lines of Perl? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47114295)

ought to be enough for anybody

So now we're trusting blogs face value? (4, Insightful)

Whatsmynickname (557867) | about 2 months ago | (#47112547)

Has this been verified? Is this poster even supposed to be posting data like this? Main news channels now repeat blogs true or not as facts, et tu Slashdot

Re:So now we're trusting blogs face value? (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 months ago | (#47112717)

In fairness, it's no more unreliable than the 500million+ lines of code, claim. And somehow much more believable.

Re:So now we're trusting blogs face value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112791)

"People" believed that because republicans said it, and they too are republican, therefore it must be fact!

Re:So now we're trusting blogs face value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113169)

Well, this evidence, if true, isn't too far off 500 million. The poster admitted there are backend parts not included. If you also take in to account code written in other systems to provide services and interfaces to this one, the 3.7 million number will grow beyond 4 million and within reasonable rounding of 500 million.

Re:So now we're trusting blogs face value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113981)

Ooh, lets count back-end parts like the OS, database, and appserver while we're at it.

Re:So now we're trusting blogs face value? (2)

Cwix (1671282) | about 2 months ago | (#47114777)

4 million lines of code isn't too far from 500 million? Math is not your strong suit is it.

Re:So now we're trusting blogs face value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47115023)

I believe both numbers are correct. They copy-pasted about 4 million lines from code-project and billed for 500 million lines.

Re:So now we're trusting blogs face value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47114349)

the 500+ million lines is probably the amount that was used by the contractors for billing purposes.

Re:So now we're trusting blogs face value? (4, Funny)

Ksevio (865461) | about 2 months ago | (#47112755)

Of course not! We're trusting blogs that cite reddit comments. Since the comment got "Reddit gold" it must be trustworthy.

Re: So now we're trusting blogs face value? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113681)

I can confirm Alex was one of about 6 good CGIFederal coders on the hc.gov effort, and generally a good guy. He was working on SHOP (the small business market) before it got cancelled and him redirected to bug fixes. I haven't counted the lines of code on the sustenance7.0 branch, but it's probably in the ballpark. Posted AC for obvious reasons.

Did it include... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112553)

the parts where the "programmers" and "designers" were learning basic javascript functions and had code copied from w3schools? How were the hundreds of "TODO" lines counted? I'm sure its better now, but damn was it a disaster to look at the page source in Oct.

Libtards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112575)

Of course it has so many lines. It was designed by libtards to give as many libtards as possible a job for this libtard program.

Typical libtards.

Re: Libtards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112657)

Why is Slashdot full of libtards?

-Most libtards don't have jobs so they can comment on things they don't understand like energy policy all day as they don't care what the working man pays for energy as long as they feel good about controlling people for bullshit reasons like global warming.

-Slashdot posts stories about solar panels and electric cars that appeal to libtards. Libtards love to push shitty technology on everyone to jack up the price of energy so we have to live in a third world hellhole again all over bullshit global warming.

-Slashdot is very LGBTQ friendly. While this in itself is not a problem this combined with all of the libtards means that straight white men are nothing but targets and I'm fucking tired of this!

-Slashdot has the Anonymous Coward feature which means libtards can show their real racist tendencies.

-Lastly most people here love Obama who is the ultimate libtard. Even mention conservatives and you get modded until oblivion.

Re: Libtards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113647)

I am sorry guys for my previous posting. I just had a stroke, my brain was not functioning and apparently I just passed out on the keyboard. Bummer.

Re: Libtards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47115865)

-Slashdot has the Anonymous Coward feature which means libtards can show their real racist tendencies.

Says the Anonymous Coward... how ironic, you faggot fucking white trash honky.

WOW (0, Flamebait)

technosaurus (1704630) | about 2 months ago | (#47112579)

Over 3 million lines of bugs for what is essentially a database frontend.

Re:WOW (5, Informative)

thedonger (1317951) | about 2 months ago | (#47112787)

Forget about the number of lines of code. I work for a U.S. company that builds healthcare.gov type web sites and the reporting back end for large companies. The estimated price tag of the front end ($150 million or so) is about 20 times what the tax payers should have paid. Add in the back end reporting to the insurance companies and billing, throw a call center in at least two different time zones, main and backup datacenters and instead of the full price tag ($600 mil?), let's say at the high end $20 million for the whole thing. Ongoing administration costs maybe in the 7 digits per year. The whole thing was a sham to get votes and fill the coffers of some cronies.

Re:WOW (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 months ago | (#47112941)

yeah, where everyone is in a few insurance groups and gets the same basic benefits

obamacare has variable pricing based on history, finances, where you live, etc. lots of business rules to properly price the policy

Re:WOW (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 months ago | (#47113279)

I thought the whole point of the ACA was that everyone got the same basic benefits?

And while it's true that calculating the subsidy is part of the job, that's not all that big a deal, really. Family size & family income are pretty much the only variables. Given those inputs, you should be able to make the calculation in a hundred lines of code, tops.

Re:WOW (3)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 months ago | (#47113923)

No, that's not the point at all.
The point was to make useful insurance policies more readily availible to more amercians. Its so frustrating to hear people on the news talk about how a doctor wouldn't treat them because he didn't take "obamacare". There is no single policy that can be catagorised as "obamacare". If someone actually said that without actually looking at his policy, then that's just crazy wrong. As far as I know, providers can't really tell if a specific policy was purchased on an exchange or not.

Re:WOW (1)

Zordak (123132) | about 2 months ago | (#47115565)

Its so frustrating to hear people on the news talk about how a doctor wouldn't treat them because he didn't take "obamacare".

What that guy probably means is that he bought a policy on the Obamacare exchange, and his doctor wouldn't see him because he doesn't accept that policy.

Re:WOW (1)

trawg (308495) | about 2 months ago | (#47115753)

What that guy probably means is that he bought a policy on the Obamacare exchange, and his doctor wouldn't see him because he doesn't accept that policy.

But that can happen anyway, right? Presumably doctors change what insurance they accept at certain times depending on what market conditions exist and how they go with the various insurance companies they have to deal with?

Re:WOW (2)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 2 months ago | (#47115857)

>. Its so frustrating to hear people on the news talk about how a doctor wouldn't treat them because he didn't take "obamacare". There is no single policy that can be catagorised as "obamacare"

You're probably misunderstanding what is said, or the reporters are saying it wrong. The ACA cut $200B from Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, and some doctors stopped accepting such patients when they did the math and found it would cause them to take a loss, or not be worth their time.

Re:WOW (2)

thedonger (1317951) | about 2 months ago | (#47113463)

yeah, where everyone is in a few insurance groups and gets the same basic benefits

obamacare has variable pricing based on history, finances, where you live, etc. lots of business rules to properly price the policy

Actually, no. We can program a high amount of variability in pricing and eligibility based on whatever data is required. And we own a private exchange, so we do that, too. Also, we can implement such a project in 6 months, sometimes less, including the entire reporting requirement.

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113067)

Look at their backend database. MarkLogic, a NoSQL XML DB? NoSQL is great for a massive amount of data where integrity isn't an issue, but even though MarkLogic claims ACID compliance, they make light and say that ACID isn't really needed. However, for medical records which are almost as critical as banking records [1], using a DB that tap dances around integrity for speed is just wrong.

Realistically, the HC.gov website should have been done with a decent SQL RDBMS. Oracle comes to mind, DB/2 as well, and even though both companies have had issues, there is enough expertise to go around that a solution can be found. If neither is good, MS SQL server, and Sybase also provide scalability on the large sizes needed.

The sad thing, this whole project could have been implemented for a fraction of the cost it took had they just stuck with known good industry standards and consultants who knew what they are doing with large scale database installations. MarkLogic is great for indexing cat pictures on a social network. It is not something to be using to make sure someone gets a sulfide instead of a sulfate compound in their medicine.

[1]: No banks use NoSQL for their core transactions. Enough said.

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113225)

No banks use NoSQL for their core transactions. Enough said.

I guess they should have used a Java Applet then. /s

Re:WOW (1, Offtopic)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47114099)

Exactly. Should have just implemented Canada's Single Payer National Healthcare for 1/20th the cost.

The resulting health improvement in the US would have saved Trillions that we could have wasted in IraqIranAfghaniPakistan.

Re:WOW (0)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 months ago | (#47114345)

Exactly. Should have just implemented Canada's Single Payer National Healthcare for 1/20th the cost.

The resulting health improvement in the US would have saved Trillions that we could have wasted in IraqIranAfghaniPakistan.

First, the cost of both wars was less than $2 trillion, making the 's' on the word "Trillion" misleading and dishonest.

Next, we have a government run, single payer, health care system now. It's called VA. How's that working out?

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47114745)

Next, we have a government run, single payer, health care system now. It's called VA. How's that working out?

People are lying to the people writing their paycheck to keep the next check coming, news at 10. Let me know when you come up with a way to stop that in any setting, private or public.

Aetna et al would appreciate that too, especially since doctors don't get arrested for defrauding them, they can only sue them and hope to get some money back.

Re:WOW (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47114845)

First, the cost of both wars was less than $2 trillion, making the 's' on the word "Trillion" misleading and dishonest.

Next, we have a government run, single payer, health care system now. It's called VA. How's that working out?

You forgot to include lifetime costs for VA health care for surviving vets, who tend to have fairly difficult to treat injuries that would have killed people in prior wars.

This is why there's such a backlog in the VA.

The costs are as I state, not the low ball "cost" you've been told.

Re:WOW (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 2 months ago | (#47114965)

We're talking about the implementation model of the VA, and how it ends up in actual implementation, not the details of the 'bottom line dollar value' of the VA. Shit-tons of money are spent on the VA, as should be the case for veterans who gave so much. Get a clue and pull your head outta there.

Re:WOW (1)

wonderboss (952111) | about 2 months ago | (#47112819)

That was exactly my reaction.

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112895)

Over 3 million lines of bugs for what is essentially a database frontend.

This really shows your ignorance. Sure there's a whole lot of DB stuff going on, but there are many complex systems both within the government and with the providers that this system interacts with.

Re:WOW (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 months ago | (#47112983)

If they had used a good ESB instead of hard coding it, then even that portion of the code would be greatly reduced. ( and more maintainable )

Re:WOW (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#47113499)

I still think that the system could be something like ten times smaller, easily. The vast majority of large systems is shrinkable by at least that amount when the lowest hanging accidental complexity fruit is removed. (That's usually just the beginning but half-baked projects like this one are generally not willing to go all the way along that path.)

Re:WOW (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 months ago | (#47113659)

Over 3 million lines of bugs for what is essentially a database frontend.

That's a huge oversimplification. It's kinda like calling an Abrams Tank a bulldozer with a rifle bolted on the front.

HealthCare.gov does a lot of actual calculations itself. Once it knows your location it has to ask several other databases for your income level, at which point it compares that income level to the poverty rate. This is step one of determining your subsidy. Step 2 is to query a second database for a list of plans in your area. The second lowest cost silver plan is the "Base Plan" which is the second number used to calculate your subsidy. That's not just a database query, it's executable code.

Moreover the database front-end is probably the most complicated database front-end in actual production anywhere. It's not just querying a somewhat secure SQL database to show your friends your blog posts, it's querying multiple completely different databases, most of whom weren't designed to be compatible with each-other. It all needs damn-near-perfect security. It needs to deal with complex legal questions such as what happens when Louisiana decides some insurer has been cheating a bit on some legal requirement? Is the desired result under Louisiana law different then Ohio?

Re:WOW (1)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 months ago | (#47114509)

HealthCare.gov does a lot of actual calculations itself. Once it knows your location it has to ask several other databases for your income level, at which point it compares that income level to the poverty rate. This is step one of determining your subsidy. Step 2 is to query a second database for a list of plans in your area. The second lowest cost silver plan is the "Base Plan" which is the second number used to calculate your subsidy. That's not just a database query, it's executable code.
Everything you described here can be done within a database engine, making HealthCare.gov essentially a database frontend that reinvented part of the wheel.

Moreover the database front-end is probably the most complicated database front-end in actual production anywhere.
No. No it's not, or at least it doesn't need to be. I would say credit card authorization databases would be the most complicated, followed closely by the banks. There are also several customer databases that are outright huge. You have parts inventories for large companies and databases used by engineers designing various components for bridges, air liners, jet fighters, combat vehicles, electric cars, etc. Of course, let's not forget the databases used by Internet companies like Google, government agencies like the IRS, census, and the Fed, and the multitude of databases need to run our phone and communication systems. All of these systems require front-ends. The frontend my bank uses for their online banking system is more complicated than HC.gov and deals with a more complicated system of DB's on the backend.
If this is one of the most complicated database front-ends in existence, that is proof that it is designed and written by incompetents.

it's querying multiple completely different databases, most of whom weren't designed to be compatible with each-other. It all needs damn-near-perfect security. It needs to deal with complex legal questions such as what happens when Louisiana decides some insurer has been cheating a bit on some legal requirement? Is the desired result under Louisiana law different then Ohio?
So, it's the type of system you find running every bank in America, minus the need for international transactions.

(disclaimer: I've worked in Internet Banking Systems and the defense industry)

Re:WOW (0)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 months ago | (#47114925)

Finance guys are so cute. They're convinced that just because it has finance on the title, and the boss spends loads of money on legal shit, everything is more legal and complicated then anything anyone else does. The problem with this post in particular is that you're conflating a bunch of different finance databases into a single database.

For example a retail bank needs two tables in it's accounts database. One for the account, a second to record the transactions. The database may be queried by other databases (ie: the guy approving loans), but it is not actually a part of those databases. If you're gonna include it in your bank-database-frontend system then you also have to include every database HealthCare.gov queries in it's complexity. That includes the entire Social Security system, and the IRS, so HealthCare.gov still kicks your ass because your entire tax form is queried by the database when it verifies your income.

You could probably convince a bunch of PHB-English Majors your database is more complicated because you have six different, totally unrelated databases in the same file, but don't try that shit in front of engineers.

BTW, this bit of your post is actually less ridiculous then your claim finance databases have to be complicated due to complying with state law. To an extent that's true, but given that the Feds have had over-arching regulation of the finance industry for decades and state laws have tended to become more uniform over the period, and they've had practical influence over health insurance for five months, it doesn't prove your legal compliance problems are more complex then HealthCarte.gov's.

Re:WOW (5, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 months ago | (#47115281)

Finance guys are so cute.
I was an IT guy so....

For example a retail bank needs two tables in it's accounts database. One for the account, a second to record the transactions.
The DB needs a customer table (name, address, phone, address, ect), transaction table, account type table, account table, interest rate table, payee table, payroll tables (complete with more account data from other banks, employee names, etc) etc. There's a LOT of data involved, and this still doesn't include the cutesie stuff banks throw in like customer preferences.

The database may be queried by other databases (ie: the guy approving loans), but it is not actually a part of those databases.
Actually, different systems maintain different databases. For example the Internet Banking side will maintain it's own database. the ATM side will have it's own side. Then there's the credit card system, ACH systems, wire systems, the core system itself and others. All of these systems must interact with eachother. For example, the a customer may log into the Internet banking side, which will have to hit the core to get the current balance, EOD balance from yesterday, unprocessed transactions, processed transactions, interest rates, any messages from the bank, and so on. It also has to be able to inject transactions such as payroll into the core system, wires into the wire system and so on.
Of course, all of these systems are different. The ACH system uses a flat text file. The core is usually an UNIX based system with a terminal interface. The Internet Banking is probably an Apache Tomcat connecting to a MSSQL system. Then, there is the bank end that is comprised of DB front-ends, screen scrapers, batch files, transaction injectors and so on.

You could probably convince a bunch of PHB-English Majors your database is more complicated because you have six different, totally unrelated databases in the same file, but don't try that shit in front of engineers.
Not just different DB's but completely different architectures. And, of course, different states have different laws. For example, all states that take income taxes have a different method to pay them. Then their are business taxes, both federal and for all 50 states, loan laws, interest rate laws etc.

And there is much much more, but this is getting out of hand. Suffice to say that you have no friggin' clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to everything a bank does, much less when it comes to tying all those systems together.

Compare that to the ACA system which involves user data, finance data, what companies are available per state, what plans available per company, and an interface system to communicate between the handful of ACA authorized insurance companies per state and the back-office system. Many states run their own system. The government has claimed that their system doesn't even keep the data!

I doubt any developers believed that (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112633)

It was a number some talking head pulled out of their butt to whine about bloated government project X to the ignorant public.

47449 lines of Maven (pom.xml) (5, Funny)

Tailhook (98486) | about 2 months ago | (#47112639)

Hmm.

Could we, perhaps, use some of the techniques that people have speculated about for deflecting space rocks and, instead, guide one into Earth deliberately?

They need to rename the site (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112795)

This is hillarycare.gov, and it contains well over 500 million dollars in the "code".

And if somebody would be so kind as to post the number of lines here on Slashdot, it would be most appreciated. I'm not going to the damn click bait site to see them.

Even 10MLocs would be outrageous (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112855)

Me and my 120 developer colleagues are able to make software for 40 hospitals, covering about every bit of information you can imagine, in less than 10 MLocs (I counted 4.7 real code MLocs four years ago, might be 10+ now because of migration to other language/environment and new features). 500M for a website isn't possible. Period.

Re:Even 10MLocs would be outrageous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47114399)

>500M for a website isn't possible. Period.
It is when you use PHP and / or Java.

Why So Many Programming and Scripting Languages? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47112865)

Language files blank comment code
Java 13481 419643 847982 2399683
HTML 1635 50124 16845 515494
Javascript 1631 56298 102140 322192
XSD 5227 1238 20945 156696
XML 659 6436 13073 136827
CSS 205 14000 9420 109815
Maven 275 737 1421 47449
XSLT 383 2357 1476 21624
Bourne Shell 248 2305 1446 8830
SQL 28 860 139 8487
JavaServer Faces 35 766 0 3770
DOS Batch 48 235 118 849
Ant 8 77 45 810
Perl 18 161 45 646
Visualforce Component 39 0 0 626
Groovy 4 68 15 361
Python 5 55 90 263
Visual Basic 1 3 0 25
DTD 1 8 0 17
JSP 3 0 0 13
ASP.Net 1 0 0 11
SUM 23935 555371 1015200 3734488

Holy Christopher Columbus! Was it bring your favourite programming language to work month?

Re:Why So Many Programming and Scripting Languages (1)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | about 2 months ago | (#47113031)

at least there was no COBOL.

because COBOL is the devil and it raises taxes

Re:Why So Many Programming and Scripting Languages (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 months ago | (#47115343)

I didn't see Brainfuck. Or Malbolge.

Re:Why So Many Programming and Scripting Languages (1)

Zordak (123132) | about 2 months ago | (#47115609)

Holy Christopher Columbus! Was it bring your favourite programming language to work month?

Don't worry. The Obama administration has issued an executive order instructing the new vendor to port the system entirely to INTERCAL.

$1.2B/3.7m = (1, Troll)

h8sg8s (559966) | about 2 months ago | (#47112921)

Approaching $325 per line of code. Great work if you can get it. Wonder what it would have looked like had it been outsourced to some high-volume web service like Google or FB?

Re:$1.2B/3.7m = (3, Informative)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 months ago | (#47113187)

Where do you get $1.2 Billion?

As of December it was $319 million or so. And that includes a lot of non-technical stuff.

Re:$1.2B/3.7m = (3, Informative)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 months ago | (#47113197)

Goddamn I thought I typed that link right. But this is the source for $319 million:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]

Re:$1.2B/3.7m = (1)

h8sg8s (559966) | about 2 months ago | (#47113619)

http://about.bgov.com/2013-10-... [bgov.com]

I added the customary Obamacare cost overruns to round it out to $1.2B

Why should I believe this information? (3, Interesting)

sbrown123 (229895) | about 2 months ago | (#47112975)

Seriously. This account was created just to post some numbers and we are suppose to take them as fact? Hell, I could create an account on Reddit and come up with a totally different set of numbers and you can take my comment as fact too.

Re:Why should I believe this information? (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 months ago | (#47113253)

Because it looks right and the only other possible estimate we have (500 million) is clearly ridiculous BS an idiot made up as a sound-byte.

As an engineer that's probably not enough certainty for you to believe it, but public policy isn't engineering. Most decisions have to be based on incomplete information, (generally half-remembered overheard BS), so you kinda have to go with the Least Stupid Guess option.

Re:Why should I believe this information? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 2 months ago | (#47114919)

Public policy is social engineering. Yes, I mean that in the Mitnick sense.

No, not in the 'Mitnick sense' of a 2600 subscriber. I meant as in 'fucking crooks.'

Re:Why should I believe this information? (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 months ago | (#47115391)

To an extent that's true.

But even no public policy is de facto a public policy that the last set of crooks should keep all their ill-gotten gains, and if they did their crookedness right they will also have the opportunity to increase their gains.

The problem analytic folks have is that the worlds problems are generally people. And those people aren't gonna look at your beautifully-crafted piece of logic proving their Social Security needs to be cut and say "Well that makes sense, I guess I won't be taking my grandson to Disney World anytime soon." Since most taxpayers think they're taxed enough to solve the problem we either have to engage in a bunch of political BS backscratching/half-truths/lies or just sit on our asses as the trust fund's expiration date approaches.

Re:Why should I believe this information? (1)

glwtta (532858) | about 2 months ago | (#47113729)

No one expects you to take anything as fact.

Those numbers do, on the other hand, sound plausible for a project of that type and size. Including the breakdown between different languages.

Whereas the 500m number is absurd on its face. You're not expected to take away more than that.

I can Replace it with ONE Line of Code! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113001)

MSGBOX( "Fuck You, America" )

Re:I can Replace it with ONE Line of Code! (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 2 months ago | (#47113059)

MSGBOX( "Fuck You, America" )

This must be the much-vaunted "replace" portion of the Republican "Repeal and Replace" slogan.

Count faster (5, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 months ago | (#47113381)

I don't see how they could have reported 500 million lines of code in the first place. The Congressional authorization to spend $30 million to study the best way to count lines isn't even out of the House committee yet.

Re:Count faster (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 2 months ago | (#47114347)

+ 1 Funny to anyone who's worked with ANY large organization, and here I am out of mod points. Sorry Impy.

2.4M Lines of Java? (4, Funny)

hondo77 (324058) | about 2 months ago | (#47113519)

To be fair, most of that is probably getters and setters.

Re:2.4M Lines of Java? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47114423)

That and error handling, because, you know, Java is so amazing at avoiding catastrophes.

OS X (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47113553)

The ITWorld article also claims that OS X Tiger had 86 million lines of code (they are referencing to an Engadget article [engadget.com] ). However, that's hard to believe. Has that number actually been 8.6 million, for example?

We all knew that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47114075)

Obama, the most intelligent President that US had sat down one day and whipped up the whole thing in 22 lines of Perl.....

We all knew that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47114253)

Obama, the most intelligent President that US had sat down one day and whipped up the whole thing in 22 lines of Perl.....

Impossible. Obama is a lawyer and lawyers never limit themselves to merely 22 lines...not even on a Commodore VIC-20 with 22 columns and 23 lines of video display.

Re:We all knew that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47114497)

It's a shame he has sealed all of his college records so there is no way to prove these "intelligent" claims. So for now, we just have to go by how well he can read a teleprompter.

Re:We all knew that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47114853)

Its a shame the Romney refused to disclose his income taxes. You know the tradition started by Romney's father when he ran for president?

Amazing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47114677)

Sweet.

Related Tangent - Accenture (1)

dave562 (969951) | about 2 months ago | (#47114929)

Is Accenture still in the running to redo the web site? I am curious to see how they do with it, given the way they handled London Stock Exchange revamp a while ago.

Perl (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 2 months ago | (#47115239)

So 18 perl scripts to run the entire site. Sounds about right. What's the rest of that code for?

Bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47115563)

Best be succinct and clera: it is easier to find flaws.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...