On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi,
Going purely the Metacello way is less proper for your purpose because you
are looking for a statistics, and due to project dependencies, you will get
to measure common projects multiple times.
yep ... you are right
However, if you have a Metacello configuration, you can easily obtain the
packages involved and their respective repositories. You can then use this
information with the Monticello importer. At least theoretically :)
ok I will look into that... for now I have an MonticelloImporter that
works ....
well almost ... ;)
Cheers,
Doru
On 24 Oct 2011, at 23:47, Ciprian Teodorov wrote:
That's cool ... from my perspective I think a
metacello importer will do
a better job... since it is closer to the idea of a
project than the
monticello repositories which sometimes are very fine grained.
So if you manage to get a working version of the metacello importer
please let me
know. Meanwhile I'll try to figure this out using the
monticello importer - importing either the whole repository or just selected
packages following a handcrafted, subjective heuristic ;)
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
I am currently working on a metacello importer. I
have been slow on this
due to numerous deadlines. Having someone bothering me
regularly will
definitely help reshuffling my todo list :-)
Cheers,
Alexandre
Le 24 oct. 2011 à 17:58, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> a écrit :
> Hi Ciprian,
>
> That is precisely what I had in mind when I said that we need someone
to do
it :).
>
> For a list of projects, I would indeed do it like Alex is saying: by
traversing projects from squeaksource. One idea is to use the
MonticelloImporter to do it from Moose. The only thing would be to implement
the relevant metrics for this importer.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> On 24 Oct 2011, at 22:47, Ciprian Teodorov wrote:
>
>> Hi Doru,
>>
>> Thank you for your answer... It's too bad we don't have these
figures... What do you say about creating a list of projects that could be
used to create such a baseline. I don't really have a precise idea about the
number of projects that we might need to compute this thing ... but I think
starting such a list might be a good idea. And then based on that we can
eventually try to get the results.
>>
>> In the Book: Object-oriented Metrics in Practice the authors used 45
java
and 37 c++ systems to get these numbers ... so I think we have to find
at least 30 projects maybe.
>>
>> I am not promising anything but maybe I will find some time over the
next
few weeks that I can dedicate to doing this.
>>
>> What do you guys say?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We do not have those thresholds for Smalltalk, yet. It would be
interesting to get them, though. We only need someone to do it :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>> On 24 Oct 2011, at 22:03, Ciprian Teodorov wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for your prompt answer.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
>>> No idea about the threshold. I find
system complexity and class
blueprint quite useful to get a first impression of a
system. I then usually
visualize the dependencies.
>>> If I really want to understand the
system, then writing unit tests
will do the thing.
>>>
>>> I completely agree with you on these points...
>>> but from my point of view I think that the overviewpyramid can be a
very good visualisation
>>> to quickly present your system's
complexity to others... especially
during a presentation...
>>> and then you can freely dive into
more detailed aspect with the
system complexity and
>>> class blueprint - to show specific
points. However, without a
statistically significant smalltalk baseline (the
threshold)
>>> the pyramid doesn't convey much
information especially to an
external viewer...
>>>
>>> so my point is, since we have the java and c++ cases, why not get
some smalltalk (or maybe pharo-specific)
>>> numbers also - especially since
Moose is implemented in smalltalk.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> ciprian
>>>
>>> Alexandre
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Oct 2011, at 16:06, Ciprian Teodorov wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I'm new to using moose for analyzing a rather large smalltalk
project developed during the last 16-17 years.
>>>> I hope that using Moose
framework will give positive insights on
the hot-spots of the system in order to
improve its structure, and make it
more maintainable.
a FPGA design-automation toolkit
developed mainly by one of my PhD
supervisors (Loic Lagadec).
>>>>
>>>> To start the evaluation I believe that the overview pyramid is a
very good starting point in order to get a generic idea about the system.
>>>> However, I was not able to find
any smalltalk threshold values in
the moose image.
>>>>
>>>> So my question is if there is somebody having some idea about the
>>>> smalltalk threshold values for the OverviewPyramid.
>>>>
>>>> If yes, could you provide me these figures, and eventually point me
to a scientific paper presenting these results.
>>>> If not, I'm willing to try
to get these figures myself... however I
don't really know which smalltalk
projects I could use to get good results.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for your attention.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> --
>>>> PhDc Ciprian TEODOROV
>>>> Lab-STICC/AS CNRS UMR 3192
>>>> University of Brest
>>>>
>>>> phone: (+33)(0) 6 08 54 73 48
>>>> mail: ciprian.teodorov(a)univ-brest.fr
>>>>
www.teodorov.ro
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>>>>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>>> Alexandre Bergel
http://www.bergel.eu
>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>>>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PhDc Ciprian TEODOROV
>>> Lab-STICC/AS CNRS UMR 3192
>>> University of Brest
>>>
>>> phone: (+33)(0) 6 08 54 73 48
>>> mail: ciprian.teodorov(a)univ-brest.fr
>>>
www.teodorov.ro
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>>>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>> --
>>
www.tudorgirba.com
>>
>> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know
her."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>
>
> --
> PhDc Ciprian TEODOROV
> Lab-STICC/AS CNRS UMR 3192
> University of Brest
>
> phone: (+33)(0) 6 08 54 73 48
> mail: ciprian.teodorov(a)univ-brest.fr
>
www.teodorov.ro
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"What we can governs what we wish."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
PhDc Ciprian TEODOROV
Lab-STICC/AS CNRS UMR 3192
University of Brest
phone: (+33)(0) 6 08 54 73 48
mail: ciprian.teodorov(a)univ-brest.fr
www.teodorov.ro
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Quality cannot be an afterthought."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
PhDc Ciprian TEODOROV
Lab-STICC/AS CNRS UMR 3192
University of Brest
phone: (+33)(0) 6 08 54 73 48
mail: ciprian.teodorov(a)univ-brest.fr