[aida] Code stats - Aida vs. Seaside vs. Iliad
frido at q-software-solutions.de
Mon Nov 15 14:21:11 CET 2010
Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si> writes:
> On 15. 11. 2010 11:40, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>>> Quite interesting results and again a lot of food for discussion!
>> Indeed AIDA and Seaside need more tests and Iliad more comments ;-)
>> Now the question is is Iliad so readable that it does not need comments
>> I think discussing somethong upon such numbers is not a worthwhile
>> undertaking. Too many open questions which may it feasible to "judge"
> But at least we have those numbers there, for a first time. Those
> numbers (and some additional to come) can be a good start to measure a
> code quality at one side and code understandability at the other. Which
> seems not to be one and the same thing, code quality seems not necessary
> lead to code understability. So question is if our code quality
> standards are actually good or should be redefined?
Well the problem is the numbers alone do not tell the whole story. E.g
if you have short methods which are "simple" one would expec less
comments. If you have some piece of code lenghty whith many comments
than you know that you are in a round of trouble
> Specially of you look at first two distribution graphs  for nr. of
> methods in classes and class inheritance depth, together with
> package/class/method numbers.
> These show me the two different approaches, school of thought if you
> like, to quality/understandability questions.
Not that much as in other languages. The base still is quite short
methods. The difference I see mainly in code granularity. I'm still
undecided what may be good or bad. The last books I have read or am
reading are very much for very fine granularity. e.g the Smalltalk books
from Andre Valluh but also from Robert C Martin are in favour of many
classes and very small methods. Anyway the Smalltalk way of things
AFAIKT from my experiences (which are surely lacking) are that
Smalltalkers are used to write small methods. I see a different "way" of
thinkin in the OO camp but also the FP camp.
> And that's what I actually
> wanted to find out with those measurements: to objectively show those
> differences and open a discussion about that. To improve Aida, and
> subsequently other web frameworks. This can be at the end a contribution
> to Smalltalk as a whole!
I agree to some part but disagree about the fact that the numbers alone
are not sufficient. You'd better take some prototypic elements from the
diverse Web Frameworks and/or implement the same solution in any of
them. Unfortunatly to get to some "more" concrete figures you need to
have not just "toy" examples. But who can afford e.g to sponsor a
certain type if web application to be build in the different tools?
And one has to see that none of the Smalltalk Webframeworks are closed,
so I expect that some may look at least sometimes into a different
solution. And probably changes the own code quite often. What probably
won't change is the "big" outline. Aida probably has some core in it
which is in it from the beginning. I expect the same for Seaside and
Iliad. I expect also that Iliad does have the less fixed structure
because in comparison it's the newest. I don't know if Seaside or Aida
are older but I expect the older systems to be less likely to be
Of course I may get that all, but to really get a discussion needs some
code from the diffent packages and see how to "refactor" them. So
interesting would be a refatoring rate or the like. Howerver I've not
the slightest idea on how such thing could be calculated...
Q-Software Solutions GmbH; Sitz: Bruchsal; Registergericht: Mannheim
Registriernummer: HRB232138; Geschaeftsfuehrer: Friedrich Dominicus
More information about the Aida