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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) Subject: Re: Module size (was Re: Software landmines) Date: 1998/09/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388073287 References: <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6simjo$jnh$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sjk3p$4tc$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6skgn4$3gq$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F02981.B13C875@ac3i.dseg.ti.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@visi.com X-Trace: ptah.visi.com 904972173 209.98.6.59 (Sat, 05 Sep 1998 00:09:33 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 00:09:33 CDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 18:36:32 GMT, Patrick Logan wrote: > >I don't like this approach. I don't see the value. I'd rather see the >engineers adopt a set of measurements that indicate whether or not the >current efforts are on track for meeting their goals. The boss should >be informed enough to have confidence that the goals are correct, the >measurements are reasonably telling, and the reports are truthful. > >If the boss has more detailed questions then they should be addressed >within this context. If he wonders about the impact of some >observation that is not accounted for in the current metrics, then >there should be a decision about whether to track that observation in >some reliable way, and how to use those results in a proposed >extension to the current process on an experimental basis. If we were further along in our metrics process, perhaps these questions would be reasonable. As it is, this is the first time we've dug into our code base in this way. We didn't have _any_ idea what sort of distribution was normal. When I saw 900+ one-line methods, and 60+ zero-line methods, I very much wanted to figure out why. That is, after all, what I'm doing (well, that, and burning some time while waiting for a customer to sign-off on a contract.) The problem is that the distribution of function in an OO system is very different from a procedural system. It's one of the reasons why the current C++ system provides much more functionality than its C predecessor, but has only 1/3 the code. But the reasons for the different distribution are very strongly tied to OO design principles and the whole OO paradigm. Perhaps others can explain OO in 30 seconds or less, but I've never been able to. -- Our ability to imagine complex applications will always excede our ability to develop them. -- Grady Booch