on complexity [Was: on goto]
in [General Programming]
|
Prev: on complexity [Was: on goto]
Next: on complexity
From: Nick Keighley on 11 May 2010 04:57 On 11 May, 09:29, Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: > Nick Keighley wrote: > > both versions of the algorithm gave the same complexity measurement in > > a tool I have. They both rated 5 for cyclometric complexity. > > McCabe, by any chance? it just says "cyclometric". From the tool makers website:- "Cyclomatic -- Cyclomatic complexity as per the original NIST paper on the subject. Edges - Nodes + Connected Components." > If so, how does the visual rep of the code come out? Which *looks* simpler? the early exit version looks simpler on a graph (honestly!). But the EE for-loops get graphed as single nodes whilst SE for-loops warrent extra edges on the graph. I'm slightly surprised they gave the measure considering the graphs look so different.
From: Richard Heathfield on 11 May 2010 05:07 Nick Keighley wrote: > On 11 May, 09:29, Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: >> Nick Keighley wrote: > >>> both versions of the algorithm gave the same complexity measurement in >>> a tool I have. They both rated 5 for cyclometric complexity. >> McCabe, by any chance? > > it just says "cyclometric". I meant the tool maker's software. If you're not using McCabe, I guess you're using "Understand"? > From the tool makers website:- > > "Cyclomatic -- Cyclomatic complexity as per the original NIST paper on > the subject. Edges - Nodes + Connected Components." > >> If so, how does the visual rep of the code come out? Which *looks* simpler? > > the early exit version looks simpler on a graph (honestly!). Any chance of a PNG (or BMP) of each? If you don't want to use your own Web space for this, you could perhaps email them to me, and I'll cheerfully find some scratch space for them. -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line vacant - apply within
From: Nick Keighley on 11 May 2010 06:36 On 11 May, 10:07, Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: > Nick Keighley wrote: > > On 11 May, 09:29, Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: > >> Nick Keighley wrote: > > >>> both versions of the algorithm gave the same complexity measurement in > >>> a tool I have. They both rated 5 for cyclometric complexity. > > >> McCabe, by any chance? > > > it just says "cyclometric". > > I meant the tool maker's software. ah, sorry I thought you were asking "which cyclometric complexity" > If you're not using McCabe, I guess > you're using "Understand"? yup > > From the tool makers website:- > > > "Cyclomatic -- Cyclomatic complexity as per the original NIST paper on > > the subject. Edges - Nodes + Connected Components." > > >> If so, how does the visual rep of the code come out? Which *looks* simpler? > > > the early exit version looks simpler on a graph (honestly!). > > Any chance of a PNG (or BMP) of each? If you don't want to use your own > Web space for this, you could perhaps email them to me, and I'll > cheerfully find some scratch space for them. PDF? (not my choice but Understand's). Haven't got access to my webspace at present so I can email them. Is PDF ok or would you like something else (I'll only alt-print screen them)
From: Nick Keighley on 11 May 2010 07:03 On 11 May, 11:36, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 11 May, 10:07, Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: > > > Nick Keighley wrote: > > > On 11 May, 09:29, Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: > > >> Nick Keighley wrote: > > > >>> both versions of the algorithm gave the same complexity measurement in > > >>> a tool I have. They both rated 5 for cyclometric complexity. > > > >> McCabe, by any chance? > > > > it just says "cyclometric". > > > I meant the tool maker's software. > > ah, sorry I thought you were asking "which cyclometric complexity" > > > If you're not using McCabe, I guess > > you're using "Understand"? > > yup > > > > From the tool makers website:- > > > > "Cyclomatic -- Cyclomatic complexity as per the original NIST paper on > > > the subject. Edges - Nodes + Connected Components." > > > >> If so, how does the visual rep of the code come out? Which *looks* simpler? > > > > the early exit version looks simpler on a graph (honestly!). > > > Any chance of a PNG (or BMP) of each? If you don't want to use your own > > Web space for this, you could perhaps email them to me, and I'll > > cheerfully find some scratch space for them. > > PDF? (not my choice but Understand's). Haven't got access to my > webspace at present so I can email them. Is PDF ok or would you like > something else (I'll only alt-print screen them) the files are faily small so i sent them anyway. they went to an charlie pappa alpha xylophone email address
From: Richard Heathfield on 11 May 2010 07:18
Nick Keighley wrote: <snip> > Is PDF ok or would you like > something else (I'll only alt-print screen them) PDF works - I can probably convert it into something sensible. -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line vacant - apply within |