> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:21:23 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> Counting complexity by giving a score to every statement encourages code
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> def bletch(x,y):
>>> return x + {"foo":y*2,"bar":x*3+y,"quux":math.sin(y)}.get(mode,0)
>>>
>>> instead of:
>>>
>>> def bletch(x,y):
>>> if mode=="foo": return x+y*2
>>> if mode=="bar": return x*4+y
>>> if mode=="quux": return x+math.sin(y) return x
>>>
>>> Okay, this is a stupid contrived example, but tell me which of those
>>> you'd rather work with
>>
>>
> Oh, I'm *so* glad I work in a small company.
Agreed. Do we rate a contractor's quality of workmanship and efficiency by the
number of nails he drives?
Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
A better metric of code quality and complexity would be to borrow from science
and mathematics. i.e. a peer review or audit by others working on the project
or in the same field of study. Unfortunately this isn't cheap or easily
computed and doesn't translate nicely to a bar graph.
Such is reality.
-Modulok-
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
