Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!know!samsung!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!wb3ffv!ssg0!petej
From: petej@ssg0.UUCP (Peter M. Jansson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Determining C Complexity
Message-ID: <205@ssg0.UUCP>
Date: 3 Aug 90 13:55:11 GMT
Reply-To: petej@ssg0.UUCP (Peter M. Jansson)
Organization: Pharmacia Diagnostics, Columbia, MD
Lines: 13

In article <1990Aug2.195825.29393@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>That is the crux of the problem:  there is little or no evidence that
>those code metrics measure anything *useful*.
>

There's little or no evidence that metrics *don't* measure anything useful,
either.  In fact, there's little or no evidence about metrics at all, at
least that I've seen.  Can anyone provide citations of work that 
shows how metrics correlate to quality/maintenance cost?  We don't seem to
be having much substantial discussion without this information. ( "I hate
'em" "I like 'em" "I don't know")

	Pete.