Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: "Stijn Helsen" <SHelsen@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: MATLAB Contest: 7-14 Nov 2007
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:09:21 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Stijn Helsen
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <fh7ggh$rsu$1@fred.mathworks.com>
References: <fgsqlr$hsv$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fh06ou$lv0$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fh0q18$9ld$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fh0vhk$485$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fh1rki$kus$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fh3e38$a84$1@fred.mathworks.com>
Reply-To: "Stijn Helsen" <SHelsen@compuserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: webapp-02-blr.mathworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: fred.mathworks.com 1194804561 28574 172.30.248.37 (11 Nov 2007 18:09:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:09:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 98076
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:436991


I have the opinion that the "cyclic complexity" check is not the right one 
for "nice code".  Long code with lots of pieces of code with almost the 
same comments, except some are, I think, "better" than code where only 
the differences are coded separately, looking the the "complexity check".
For me such long code is much more complex to read than code with 
"nice if-then-else" clauses to show the differences.
Looking to efficiency is something else, of course.  But therefore the 
timing is already included in the scoring.
Am I the only one who is thinking like that? (or am I wrong in 
interpreting the "complexity-results").

Stijn