From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d6bef031ed123ab2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public 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 Message-ID: <551f60$rig@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 192655526 references: <326E457E.41C67EA6@aut.alcatel.at> content-type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII organization: a little mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , 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