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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!JPL-VLSI.ARPA!larry
From: larry@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Halstead Metrics + Controversial Position
Message-ID: <8607092304.AA08115@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 9-Jul-86 16:38:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8607092304.AA08115
Posted: Wed Jul  9 16:38:17 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 07:10:17 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Halstead metrics are discussed by Neal Coulter in the March '83 issue of
the IEEE Transactions on SW Engineering ("SW Science & Cognitive Psych,"
p. 166.  Also (p. 155, SW Science Revisited: a Critical Analysis of the 
Theory and its Empirical Support") by Vincent Shen, Samuel Conte, and 
H. E. Dunsmore.  I suggest that order of reading because the Coulter 
article was easier for me to read.

Elliott Soloway of Yale University (who's doing studies of the actual as 
opposed to theoretical behavior of programmers) characterizes the Halstead 
metrics as "shallow structure" measures and suggests "deep structure" measures 
as being more relevant to programmers and managers.  He calls these measures 
(I mean structures, sorry) "plans."  An example he gives is
      while not EOF
            read X;
            ...
      end while;
or "iteration protected by a guard."

The two articles also criticize the Halstead measures, and succeeding issues 
of ToSWE includes additional discussion.

[Got to go.  I'll have to send the "Controversial Position" promised in the 
Subject heading some other time.]
                                              Larry @ jpl-vlsi