On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr
wrote:
On Aug 5, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Dennis Schenk wrote:
Thanks the kudos :)
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <
stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Some information here: http://scg.unibe.ch/wiki/students/dennisschenk
And here are some pictures: • Treemap of FAMIX: http://postimage.org/image/ck4vfoq77/
what does it show?
It shows a treemap of the hierarchical graph of the moose model of the
FAMIX codebase ;)
First I created a moose model, which went something like this:
[...] importer model: model; addFromPackagesNamed: (MooseScripts packageNamesFor: 'Famix*'); [...]
Then I created a hiGraph of the moose model. The hiGraph can then
display itself as a treemap.
The big rectangle on the lower right side is a method called mse with a
weight of 5067 LOC and is, surprise, inside the package of VerveineJTestRessource.
ok should I conclude that you take the LOC as the metrics to compute the box size?
In this example yes, but as I said, you can specify anything you want as weight, any block of code that is, thus any metric.
In smalltalk we have a pretty flat hierarchy. So the outermost rectangle
is a FAMIXNamespace, the inner containment rectangles (with the gray borders) are all FAMIXClasses, and the inner rectangles are all FAMIXMethods.
If you compare the FAMIX treemap to the one of argoUML, you can see that
we got a much more nested hierarchy (nested java packages). The darker the gray borders of the containment rectangles, the deeper the nesting level.
ok thanks
Stef
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev