develooper Front page | perl.qa | Postings from June 2008

Re: The uselessness of arbitrary Metric gaming

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Aristotle Pagaltzis
Date:
June 30, 2008 17:27
Subject:
Re: The uselessness of arbitrary Metric gaming
Message ID:
20080701002637.GW24815@klangraum.plasmasturm.org
* Eric Wilhelm <scratchcomputing@gmail.com> [2008-07-01 00:15]:
> # from Aristotle Pagaltzis
> # on Monday 30 June 2008 14:42:
>
>> But *even if* the line was difficult to find, it seems to that
>> just because we were unable to agree exactly where it is
>> doesn’t imply that we’d be unable to agree when a metric is
>> way over it. I can’t imagine anyone ever proposing a Has No
>> CamelCase metric in all seriousness and without getting struck
>> down swiftly.
>
> If all of the debatable metrics were provided as information,
> rather than held-up as a golden target, there would be no need
> to strike down such a thing.

Maybe, but my point was about whether metrics can be inarguable,
and how to decide which metrics are. You seemed to be saying that
such a question offered a slippery slope, and that therefore it
was not possible to draw a line between debatable metrics and
non-debatable. I asserted that doing so is quite simple.

When I said that a metric would be struck down I meant it in the
sense of proposals to include debatable metrics in the group of
functional ones. That would, hopefully, indeed lead to a swift
strike-down.

But yes, I agree with your point insofar as that once you have
functional (and thus universally applicable and universally
helpful) metrics separated out from the inaccurate and in any
case debatable and merely informational ones, then sure, you can
provide those as neutral data points in a non-judgmental adjunct
list without ill effects.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About