ORD Sessions and and introducing Flurn

I went to the first ever ORD session last night sponsored by Inventables and Google Chicago and worked on some metric_fu stuff. The idea of the ORD sessions is that there's a lot of open source developers in the Chicago (ORD is the O'Hare airport code) area so why not get them together to hack on some stuff. I'd say over 20 people showed up and had a great time. It didn't hurt that every one who came got an unlocked google phone as a free surprise gift. When they announced, earlier in the evening, that there would be a surprise we all thought: "Oh cool, I'll probably get a t-shirt or a squishy ball." So the phone sort of blew us away.

As to metric_fu, Jeff from Inventables and I paired on a new meta metric called "Flurn." It's a combination of FLog and chURN and it tells you about files that not only are very complex but also change all the time. This is pretty bad because if the file is in constant flux and it's got a lot of convoluted code then that's a bunch of bugs waiting to happen.

"Flurn" is available through the appropriately named 'flurn' branch of metric_fu on github if you want to check it out before it's released in a future version of metric_fu.

Speaking of future versions of metric_fu, there should be one coming out soon with 'awesome' templates and graphs of metrics over time. Stay tuned.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What's a Good Flog Score?

I've been using Flog to measure the complexity of my Ruby code and I was wondering how others interpret Flog numbers. I'll go first with my opinions: Score of Means 0-10 Awesome 11-20 Good enough 21-40 Might need refactoring 41-60 Possible to justify 61-100 Danger 100-200 Whoop, whoop, whoop 200 + Someone please think of the children (note: these are scores for an individual method) The 20 - 60 range is interesting to me. Sometimes the complexity of what you're doing will justify the score and other times the method is in desperate need of refactoring. The highest Flog score I've seen in the wild was in the 300's. What's you're personal high and what do you think of my rankings? In other news, I've redesigned the look of my blog so if you only see my post through a reader you might want to stop on by, take a look, and tell me what you think.
Read more

SICP Wasn’t Written for You

The number of software luminaries who sing the praises of “ Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs ” (referred to as SICP) is such a long list that you might think only a crazy person would take issue with it. However, to ignore SICP’s problems and continue to blindly recommend it seems just as crazy. SICP was the textbook for MIT’s introductory programming class and was a bit of a departure from other into to computer science textbooks at the time.  Wikipedia sums it up nicely:  “Before SICP, the introductory courses were almost always filled with learning the details of some programming language, while SICP focuses on finding general patterns from specific problems and building software tools that embody each pattern.”  Which sounds awesome, but does essentially say that abstract principles will be introduced before the nuts and bolts of a language.  If you think about that for a minute, you may see where the problems will be. When I was training to be a...
Read more

Point Inside a Polygon in Ruby

Recently my team needed to find out if a point was inside a given polygon and, as usual, we found some code on the internet that did what we wanted. And, as usual, there wasn't much explanation as to what it was doing. Here's the code (after we converted it to Ruby): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 def contains_point? (point) c = false i = -1 j = self .size - 1 while (i += 1 ) < self .size if (( self [i].y <= point.y && point.y < self [j].y) || ( self [j].y <= point.y && point.y < self [i].y)) if (point.x < ( self [j].x - self [i].x) * (point.y - self [i].y) / ( self [j].y - self [i].y) + self [i].x) c = !c end end j = i end return c end end So, you know, it works and I'm grateful to somebody for posting it but we had no idea how it works. So we wrapped 2 tests around it (one where the point is not in the polygon and another where it is...
Read more