TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Paul D. Stachour" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:20:27 -0600
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> from "Angel Fernández Guerra" at Nov 18, 97 09:39:06 pm
Reply-To: "Paul D. Stachour" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (32 lines)
>
> Hi ada activists,
>
> We are currently performing a code walkthrought (ada source code of
> course). In the checklist we have an entry for maintainability along
> with others like readability, conformance with coding standard, data
> flow errors, testability, etc.
>
> We found some problems to decide whether a compilation unit passes or
> fails on the maintainability topic. One option could be to evaluate the
> complexity of the code using Mccabe, Haltstead, or/and Harrison figures.
> In this way the problem is the establishment of the valid range for
> these figures.
>
> If someone can enlighten me or provide any useful information, thanks a
> lot.
>
> Angel Fernández Guerra.
>
Angel,
  An organization with which I have been affilated uses McCabe.
They set a goal of 10 or less for an Ada subprogram.
If the module is over 15, it needs "an explanation".
However, McCAbe routinely gives high numbers for a set of
simple if's inside of a case statement.  This is highly
maintainable, but the McCabe numbers would tend to indicate
otherwise.

I hope that this is useful.

Dr. Paul Stachour.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2