From: Sam Pierson <sam@...>
Date: 2007-08-24T23:52:14+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] flog 1.1.0 Released

To normalize the "final score" shouldn't it be divided by the number of
lines of code to indicate an overall complexity metric?
-Sam.


On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 07:20 +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 13:33, Thomas Metge wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Here's a few examples from RubyGems trunk:
> 
> Total score = 9491.3018782491
> Server#run: (184.2)
> PristineCommand#execute: (136.1)
> Policy#verify_gem: (135.9)
> InstallCommand#execute: (123.0)
> HelpCommand#execute: (116.6)
> DependencyCommand#execute: (115.9)
> CertCommand#initialize: (110.0)
> TarOutput#open_from_io: (106.8)
> Validator#alien: (105.8)
> Gem#activate: (105.0)
> UpdateCommand#execute: (99.3)
> EnvironmentCommand#execute: (95.7)
> TarInput#initialize: (95.3)
> CleanupCommand#execute: (94.7)
> SourcesCommand#execute: (94.6)
> MirrorCommand#execute: (89.9)
> 
> As you can see, #execute for various commands have high flog scores.   
> I'd really prefer the commands to be nothing more than lightweight  
> glue methods that simply dispatch to concrete classes to do all the  
> work, as that approach maximizes reuse.
> 
> --
> Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
> best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars
> 
> 
>