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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-12 08:08:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!west.cox.net!east.cox.net!filt01.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:08:17 -0600 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:08:15 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Eachus' Measure of Goodness References: <3FA2CDCB.500F4AF0@fakeaddress.nil> <1068123815.335508@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3FAAB12E.C7593B45@fakeaddress.nil> <3FACCBFB.9D288CF2@fakeaddress.nil> <3FAF8C99.5040201@noplace.com> <7KWdnct0w8mEnyyiRVn-hA@comcast.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.214.193 X-Trace: sv3-AmCAgz+Gaf6bOZhJpOq3EsgivKnbkYtpA1XUyRju8J9EmjDRcX25fII9pUyu8PPuouXLSqNlTS771ds!WA/5UN4/94wWHeO1N5ggLRmGkCDZER5s1grkVyAnUmrmrvnjWx8pwPNKftPcFw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2423 Date: 2003-11-12T11:08:15-05:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter wrote: > For example, I have a simple program I run every day (it creates my > signature file). It has a procedure body only, with 4 with clauses... > To my mind this has S = 0, B = 4, and N = 1, giving G (for goodness) = > 4, but to another person N may be greater than 10, counting all the > parent packages and following every path until you reach units with no > with clauses. That's the way I count it too. If you want, you can analyze the (say) GNAT library packages if you want, but that gives you a number for GNAT. As for what is a good number, anything below 5 seems to be good, and over 10 is bad. In practice there are very few results in between those numbers. ;-) I remember one horrible example with around 100 packages (N around 250) where the average package spec had 10 withs, and the average body 63! > Sorry for all the questions, but I like metrics, and always want to try > out new ones. Hmmm. If you want to experiment with this, the "interesting" question I haven't resolved is which logrithm to use. Base 2 is too generous and base 10 may be too conservative, but e was just chosen because it was there. The right way to find the proper base is to use regression on a sample of "good" libraries. So I had better get back to work on my registry project! ;-) Seriously, things slowed down because I wanted to use the new version XMLAda, so I installed GNAT 3.15a, and started recompiling everything to insure there are no version skew problems. I have a lot of directories of Ada code--mine and others--on my PC... -- Robert I. Eachus 100% Ada, no bugs--the only way to create software.