3 ms·

Hmm. It sounded to me like you were saying a straight sum, or maybe a weighted sum. That’s not what I’m getting at. Subjectively, Rubocop pushing me to have sm

Hmm. It sounded to me like you were saying a straight sum, or maybe a weighted sum. That’s not what I’m getting at. Subjectively, Rubocop pushing me to have smaller everything by LoC made my code better. As has reducing function cardinality. Both of those are as straightforward a metric as “angle of incidence” or “length of a side”; and I can’t help but imagine there’s theorems that can be made from them akin to the Pythagorean. Although whether it’s possible to go from there to “code quality “ - yeah, might not be possible.

corethree 3y ago
> Hmm. It sounded to me like you were saying a straight sum, or maybe a weighted sum. That’s not what I’m getting at. Doesn't matter how you aggregate these metrics. In statistics you have all kinds of arbitrary aggregations that attempt to form a blurry "summary" of what's going on. These "aggregations" like the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, weighted average... etc... are made up as well. It's arbitrary and essentially just summaries of what's going on. You're just proposing another aggregation and obviously a blurry one too. You're not picking out the "angle of incidence" or the "length of a side". More like out of 1000 triangles you're picking out all the sides and averaging them to get some summary of the length of sides of all triangles. You can see how this statistical metric is different from say euclidean geometry right? A concrete formal theory involves definitions. What is the formal definition of a module? What are the formal rules for how modules compose? Can we put a formal algebra together that allows us to implement these rules and for theorems around these things? We want a formal theory of program organization that is akin to euclidean geometry, not some data sciencey aggregation.

3 ms·

Hmm. It sounded to me like you were saying a straight sum, or maybe a weighted sum. That’s not what I’m getting at. Subjectively, Rubocop pushing me to have sm

by RangerScience 3y ago

corethree 3y ago
> Hmm. It sounded to me like you were saying a straight sum, or maybe a weighted sum. That’s not what I’m getting at. Doesn't matter how you aggregate these metrics. In statistics you have all kinds of arbitrary aggregations that attempt to form a blurry "summary" of what's going on. These "aggregations" like the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, weighted average... etc... are made up as well. It's arbitrary and essentially just summaries of what's going on. You're just proposing another aggregation and obviously a blurry one too. You're not picking out the "angle of incidence" or the "length of a side". More like out of 1000 triangles you're picking out all the sides and averaging them to get some summary of the length of sides of all triangles. You can see how this statistical metric is different from say euclidean geometry right? A concrete formal theory involves definitions. What is the formal definition of a module? What are the formal rules for how modules compose? Can we put a formal algebra together that allows us to implement these rules and for theorems around these things? We want a formal theory of program organization that is akin to euclidean geometry, not some data sciencey aggregation.