3 ms·
The wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclomatic_complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclomatic_complexity notes 10 as a module threshold. Th
by wink 14y ago
The wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclomatic_complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclomatic_complexity notes 10 as a module threshold.
This is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, usually you'd use 10 as a rough number for your method/function whatever, not for a whole framework. The whole point of modularization/refactoring is to have small parts, I've never heard of any mention regarding to cyclomatic complexity that you cannot use a multitude of small modules.
So to sum it up, it's nice that someone tried to compare python web frameworks, but the method of comparison is misleading at best and wrong at worst.
- jre 14y agoI'm not familiar with this complexity metric, but I immediately wondered if the results had been normalized with regard to the number of lines of code or modules in each framework (The wikipedia article doesn't say anything about normalization). Django does a lot more stuff than bottle or Flask. So if you just sum up complexity of their modules, it's pretty obvious which one will come out ahead.