From: Thomas Metge <tom@...>
Date: 2007-08-24T05:33:31+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] flog 1.1.0 Released

Thomas Metge wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:05:33PM +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
>>  
>>> flog version 1.1.0 has been released!
>>>
>>> * <http://ruby.sadi.st/>
>>> * <http://rubyforge.org/projects/seattlerb>
>>>
>>> Flog reports the most tortured code in an easy to read pain
>>> report. The higher the score, the more pain the code is in.
>>>
>>>     % ./bin/flog bin/flog
>>>     Total score = 128.7
>>>     
>>
>> So . . . is that a good result, or a bad result?  How do you define
>> "pain" in this context?  Judging by the website, it looks like uses of
>> eval qualify as "pain" -- which seems like an odd metric.
>>
>>
>>  
>>>     Flog#report: (21)
>>>          4: puts
>>>          2: sort_by
>>>     ...
>>>     
>>
>> So . . . is "puts" a "painful" method, then?
>>
>>   
>
> good point... flog looks like a great tool, but what is a "good" score 
> and a "bad" score?
>
> tom
>
>
never mind... i think i'm catching on (at last)... this is extremely 
useful for pointing out painful parts of your code, not necessarily 
giving a relevant final score.  i.e. (from sample on website):

class Test
  def blah         # 11.2 =
    a = eval "1+1" # 1.2 + 6.0 +
    if a == 2 then # 1.2 + 1.2 + 0.4 +
      puts "yay"   # 1.2
    end
  end
end

in here, it would be worth removing the "eval" statement... which i can 
understand.  it'd be interesting to see the weighting scale used 
though.  i'll have to take a look at the source...

nice job on flog!

tom