• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:18:54 +1100
• References: <007601c27d73$f6ee5240$fe193044@tbp1> <1035708400.5129.25.camel@ibook>

From: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>

> (This is also visible in his Java classes where this is taken to a point
> almost impossible to follow since he goes often up to defining a huge
> number of classes having a dozen lines of code, but that's another
> story).
 
On the other hand, it does give beautfiul metrics: I ran XT (I think it was)
through a software metrics program, and there was not a single 
method or class with a bad metric, except for Commented Lines of Code
(CLOC) which is a shocker.   But if the classes or methods are all
paragraph sized, there is less need for comments: the method names
provide explaination.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: About browsers that support XSLT REC 1.0
• Next by Date: Note from the Troll
• Previous by thread: Re: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
• Next by thread: re: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread