Fwd: PDF of Software Metrics

> From: Henrik Johansen <[hidden email]>
> Date: June 18, 2010 10:01:53 AM GMT+02:00
> To: Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: PDF of Software Metrics
>
> What he was most interested in, was the C++ thresholds for the overview pyramid in Moose.
> Found those in an online presentation, so wasn't as pressing after all :)
> Is there any reason why only JavaThresholds are included/used by default, instead of being selected automatically based on what language your model originated from?
>
> On the bright side, he's found the tools really useful (doing an architectural review of a large C++ program) after I tipped him of the existence of Moose :)
>
> Mondrian visualizations do not scale very well for a project of this size though, the display model seems more geared towards traversing the model rather than culling what does not show up on screen, which turns into a problem when it redraws 50000 nodes each refresh rather than the 100 - 200 actually visible on screen...  (ie. 8-10 seconds for one refresh after clicking scroll bars) (This was an enriched DSM chart for 20 namespaces)
>
> The blueprint complexity visualization never even opened (as in, at least in the first minute), the algorithm for calculating edges is waaay too slow with 500 entities :)
>
> Which is kind of a shame, since those large, complex systems are what it really would be nice to have good visualizations of... :/
> Maybe better scaleability would be a good goal for Moose 4.1?
>
> Cheers,
> Henry
>
>
>

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Henrik Johansen <[hidden email]>
>> Date: June 18, 2010 10:01:53 AM GMT+02:00
>> To: Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: PDF of Software Metrics
>>
>> What he was most interested in, was the C++ thresholds for the  
>> overview pyramid in Moose.
>> Found those in an online presentation, so wasn't as pressing after  
>> all :)
>> Is there any reason why only JavaThresholds are included/used by  
>> default, instead of being selected automatically based on what  
>> language your model originated from?
>>
>> On the bright side, he's found the tools really useful (doing an  
>> architectural review of a large C++ program) after I tipped him of  
>> the existence of Moose :)
>>
>> Mondrian visualizations do not scale very well for a project of  
>> this size though, the display model seems more geared towards  
>> traversing the model rather than culling what does not show up on  
>> screen, which turns into a problem when it redraws 50000 nodes each  
>> refresh rather than the 100 - 200 actually visible on screen...  
>> (ie. 8-10 seconds for one refresh after clicking scroll bars) (This  
>> was an enriched DSM chart for 20 namespaces)
>>
>> The blueprint complexity visualization never even opened (as in, at  
>> least in the first minute), the algorithm for calculating edges is  
>> waaay too slow with 500 entities :)
>>
>> Which is kind of a shame, since those large, complex systems are  
>> what it really would be nice to have good visualizations of... :/
>> Maybe better scaleability would be a good goal for Moose 4.1?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Henry
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

> Hi Stef,
>
> How did they parse the C++ system?
>
> Doru
>
>
> On 18 Jun 2010, at 10:38, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Henrik Johansen <[hidden email]>
>>> Date: June 18, 2010 10:01:53 AM GMT+02:00
>>> To: Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: PDF of Software Metrics
>>>
>>> What he was most interested in, was the C++ thresholds for the overview pyramid in Moose.
>>> Found those in an online presentation, so wasn't as pressing after all :)
>>> Is there any reason why only JavaThresholds are included/used by default, instead of being selected automatically based on what language your model originated from?
>>>
>>> On the bright side, he's found the tools really useful (doing an architectural review of a large C++ program) after I tipped him of the existence of Moose :)
>>>
>>> Mondrian visualizations do not scale very well for a project of this size though, the display model seems more geared towards traversing the model rather than culling what does not show up on screen, which turns into a problem when it redraws 50000 nodes each refresh rather than the 100 - 200 actually visible on screen...  (ie. 8-10 seconds for one refresh after clicking scroll bars) (This was an enriched DSM chart for 20 namespaces)
>>>
>>> The blueprint complexity visualization never even opened (as in, at least in the first minute), the algorithm for calculating edges is waaay too slow with 500 entities :)
>>>
>>> Which is kind of a shame, since those large, complex systems are what it really would be nice to have good visualizations of... :/
>>> Maybe better scaleability would be a good goal for Moose 4.1?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Speaking louder won't make the point worthier."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

> no idea
> On Jun 18, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
>
>> Hi Stef,
>>
>> How did they parse the C++ system?
>>
>> Doru
>>
>>
>> On 18 Jun 2010, at 10:38, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Henrik Johansen <[hidden email]>
>>>> Date: June 18, 2010 10:01:53 AM GMT+02:00
>>>> To: Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: Re: PDF of Software Metrics
>>>>
>>>> What he was most interested in, was the C++ thresholds for the  
>>>> overview pyramid in Moose.
>>>> Found those in an online presentation, so wasn't as pressing  
>>>> after all :)
>>>> Is there any reason why only JavaThresholds are included/used by  
>>>> default, instead of being selected automatically based on what  
>>>> language your model originated from?
>>>>
>>>> On the bright side, he's found the tools really useful (doing an  
>>>> architectural review of a large C++ program) after I tipped him  
>>>> of the existence of Moose :)
>>>>
>>>> Mondrian visualizations do not scale very well for a project of  
>>>> this size though, the display model seems more geared towards  
>>>> traversing the model rather than culling what does not show up on  
>>>> screen, which turns into a problem when it redraws 50000 nodes  
>>>> each refresh rather than the 100 - 200 actually visible on  
>>>> screen...  (ie. 8-10 seconds for one refresh after clicking  
>>>> scroll bars) (This was an enriched DSM chart for 20 namespaces)
>>>>
>>>> The blueprint complexity visualization never even opened (as in,  
>>>> at least in the first minute), the algorithm for calculating  
>>>> edges is waaay too slow with 500 entities :)
>>>>
>>>> Which is kind of a shame, since those large, complex systems are  
>>>> what it really would be nice to have good visualizations of... :/
>>>> Maybe better scaleability would be a good goal for Moose 4.1?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Henry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>
>> "Speaking louder won't make the point worthier."
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev