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
X-To: Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:37:56 -0800
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 20 Nov 97 10:38:35 CST. <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> CC field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained.
Reply-To: Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (30 lines)
>Keith Shillington wrote:
>>
>> How do you measure the amenability of a design to change?  What salient
>> quantifiable characteristic of a design is this?
>>
>> At 12:23 AM 11/20/97 -0500, (No Name Available) wrote:
>> >I view Maintainability as covering more than the sum of the other
>> >qualities listed.  Consider how amenable the design is to changes
>> >in requirements which might reasonably be expected for the problem
>> >domain.
>> >
>> >Larry Kilgallen
>
>
>Bear in mind that the original question was how to check off
>"maintainable" in a review, not how to derive a metric.  There
>is only ONE valid way to use a metric, and that's in conjunction
>with a mind.  Raw numbers give little, or negative, value.
>
>The list you provided (in equation form) of measurable
>items is a good set of measurements.
>
>I'd add to your list that the unit should be well modularized --
>whether with procedures or inline code formatting, it should be clear
>where one activity ends and another begins.


Remember Parnas's "secrets."  Maintainability is the surprise best
seller flip side of changability; you can't buy one w/o the other.      -- hh

ATOM RSS1 RSS2