From: WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US (Robert S. White)
Subject: Re: objectada for GREAT programs ? - SLOC phys vs logical?
Date: 1996/10/28
Date: 1996-10-28T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <551f60$rig@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: kmradke-2610961017440001@dip24.inav.net
In article <kmradke-2610961017440001@dip24.inav.net>, kmradke@inav.net says...
...snip...
>I suppose confusion of terminology. My lines of code does NOT count
>comments, and this code is HEAVILY commented. The actual lines of
>code counting comments is at least double the original amount.
Come on! This seems like a perfect troll to get into a long thread
about physical SLOC (ugh!) versus logical SLOC (yah!) software metic
data collection/effort estimating. Sigh...it seems that the OFFICIAL
channels have dictated that physical SLOC be used. When I and most of my
co-workers estimate a software task, a mental image of the amount of
logical SLOC comes to mind. Now if we only had a HUGE database of
physical SLOC metrics for EXACTLY similar tasks to drawn on...
But SEI/CMM practices will make this better eventually...hope...hope...
_______________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White -- an embedded sys software engineer
WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US --long/cheap alternate I-net address
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-10-28 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-10-23 0:00 objectada for GREAT programs ? Walter Leidenfrost
1996-10-24 0:00 ` Kevin Radke
1996-10-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-10-26 0:00 ` Kevin Radke
1996-10-28 0:00 ` Robert S. White [this message]
1996-10-28 0:00 ` objectada for GREAT programs ? - SLOC phys vs logical? David Weller
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox