[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Not feeling the flogâ?¦

Austin Ziegler

11/17/2007 5:53:00 AM

I don't think that I'm really understanding the value of flog. Heckle, I
get. What am I supposed to do with a report like this:

Total score = 2264.64752355478

RGB#none: (486.2)
169.4: freeze
160.6: new
135.5: lit_fixnum
9.9: from_percentage
6.0: sclass
4.8: alias
[snippage]

What does this really tell me?

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca
5 Answers

Eric Hodel

11/17/2007 7:36:00 AM

0

On Nov 16, 2007, at 21:53 , Austin Ziegler wrote:
> I don't think that I'm really understanding the value of flog.
> Heckle, I
> get. What am I supposed to do with a report like this:
>
> Total score = 2264.64752355478
>
> RGB#none: (486.2)
> 169.4: freeze
> 160.6: new
> 135.5: lit_fixnum
> 9.9: from_percentage
> 6.0: sclass
> 4.8: alias
> [snippage]
>
> What does this really tell me?

Total complexity of your project is 2264ish. 20% (486/2264) of your
complexity lies in RGB, and I'm guessing that its all building up
your constants (from the names in your report).

What does `flog ... | grep -v '^ '` give (just the top-level stuff)

For RubyGems:

Total score = 7318.5427518653

Server#run: (203.9)
OpenURI#open_http: (161.0)
Policy#verify_gem: (135.9)
main#none: (118.0)
Validator#alien: (105.8)

Server#run is a good candidate for refactoring (3% of complexity!),
as is Policy#verify_gem (2%!). main#none is just toplevel code.
(OpenURI is in there for fixing proxy stuff :/)

Note: values are an arbitrary, they only matter relative to the
total, and relative to other modules or methods.

--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars

Austin Ziegler

11/17/2007 2:11:00 PM

0

On 11/17/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
> Total complexity of your project is 2264ish. 20% (486/2264) of your
> complexity lies in RGB, and I'm guessing that its all building up
> your constants (from the names in your report).

Pretty much.

> What does `flog ... | grep -v '^ '` give (just the top-level stuff)

Total score = 2306.67251009945

RGB#none: (486.2)
AdobeColor#initialize: (226.8)
AdobeColor#to_aco: (125.4)
RGB#to_hsl: (76.0)
HSL#to_rgb: (75.8)
MonoContrast#regenerate: (70.0)
CMYK#to_rgb: (54.9)
Metallic#none: (40.6)
Gimp#initialize: (38.2)
AdobeColor#readwords: (34.2)
RGB#to_cmyk: (33.9)
CMYK#==: (32.2)
HSL#mix_with: (32.0)
RGB#from_html: (30.0)
AdobeColor#readutf16: (29.7)

I think I'm getting it now. Inasmuch as the reported complexity
indicates the likelihood of harder to understand code or potentially
slower code, the percentage of complexity makes a difference.

Not a lot of value for the project I'm flogging right now (the
successor to color-tools that will be used in the upcoming PDF::Writer
1.1.4). Thanks.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

11/17/2007 8:18:00 PM

0

Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 21:53 , Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> I don't think that I'm really understanding the value of flog. Heckle, I
>> get. What am I supposed to do with a report like this:
>>
>> Total score = 2264.64752355478
>>
>> RGB#none: (486.2)
>> 169.4: freeze
>> 160.6: new
>> 135.5: lit_fixnum
>> 9.9: from_percentage
>> 6.0: sclass
>> 4.8: alias
>> [snippage]
>>
>> What does this really tell me?
>
> Total complexity of your project is 2264ish. 20% (486/2264) of your
> complexity lies in RGB, and I'm guessing that its all building up your
> constants (from the names in your report).
>
> What does `flog ... | grep -v '^ '` give (just the top-level stuff)
>
> For RubyGems:
>
> Total score = 7318.5427518653
>
> Server#run: (203.9)
> OpenURI#open_http: (161.0)
> Policy#verify_gem: (135.9)
> main#none: (118.0)
> Validator#alien: (105.8)
>
> Server#run is a good candidate for refactoring (3% of complexity!), as
> is Policy#verify_gem (2%!). main#none is just toplevel code. (OpenURI
> is in there for fixing proxy stuff :/)
>
> Note: values are an arbitrary, they only matter relative to the total,
> and relative to other modules or methods.

Ah ... so it's a "complexity profile". Couldn't flog display its report
with percentages and cumulative percentages? So, for your example, you'd
get:

Total 7318.54 Percent Cumulative
Server#run: 203.9 2.79% 2.79%
OpenURI#open_http: 161 2.20% 4.99%
Policy#verify_gem: 135.9 1.86% 6.84%
main#none: 118 1.61% 8.46%
Validator#alien: 105.8 1.45% 9.90%

...

Adam H. Kerman

10/31/2013 3:53:00 AM

0

Bob(but not THAT Bob) <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rockford-files-film-universal-n...

>>Vince Vaughn? Vince Vaugh? Barf

>>This is such a hideous idea. You just can't re-cast this character.

>They never should... but

>Compared to Will Smith as Jim West, and Johnny Depp as Tonto and Cruise
>as the entire Mission Impossible team, Vince looks better as a "Rockford
>type" at least.

A few years ago, they were talking about Josh Holloway.

Vaughn's not a bad actor. I've liked him in a few movies, despised him
in other movies. His comedy is ham-fisted, so he's no substitute for Garner.

If any of these actors were serious about playing a private investigator,
why saddle them with an established character closely associated with another
actor? That just invites unwelcome comparison.

It would be more commercially viable as an unconnected new series.

Brian Thorn

10/31/2013 11:28:00 PM

0

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:34:39 -0400, "Bob(but not THAT Bob)"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rockford-files-film-universal-n...
>>
>> Vince Vaughn? Vince Vaugh? Barf
>>
>> This is such a hideous idea. You just can't re-cast this character.
>>
>
>They never should... but
>
>Compared to Will Smith as Jim West, and Johnny Depp as Tonto and Cruise
>as the entire Mission Impossible team, Vince looks better as a "Rockford
>type" at least.



I was thinking the same thing.

If this is this going to be a comedy send-up of 70s detective shows
(like the abysmal "Starsky and Hutch") then I'm not interested at all.
But if this is going to be true to Rockford, with a sly sense of humor
around the investigation updated to the 2010s, it could, just possibly
work. There are definitely worse choices for Rockford, such as Dylan
McDermott in the aborted NBC revival.

Brian