Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpfr | Hacker News Reader

We reached the maximum thread depth.

>> Simplicity is a much better goal for the day-to-day work. Because it can be tracked, measured and evaluated for every individual change.

>How does one purport to measure simplicity?

There's 40 years of research into that. And loads of tools to support dev teams.

You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclomatic_complexity

Also related are costing models: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COCOMO

View on HN

Derek Jones argues McCabe Complexity and COCOMO were scientifically unsupported with little bandwagons pushing them for reasons of fame and/or funding:

http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2018/03/27/mccabe...

http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2016/05/19/cocomo...

We also have 40 years of research into improving program correctness, e.g. static analysis, test suites (unit, integration, etc.), fuzzing/mutation testing, and the benefits of code review. The idea that simplicity (which I'm pretty sure that nobody in here is using to specifically mean "the lack of cyclomatic complexity") can be measurably improved but that correctness cannot is incorrect.

> The idea that simplicity (which I'm pretty sure that nobody in here is using to specifically mean "the lack of cyclomatic complexity") can be measurably improved but that correctness cannot is incorrect.

Have you seen a program that comes with a formal proof of correctness? I have. And boy, they are really simple.

The end result can be complicated. But the program is broken up into small, simple, easy-to-understand pieces that are then composed.

http://spinroot.com

https://frama-c.com

Reply on news.ycombinator.com