Talk:Essential complexity
2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
 | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 11:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Cyclomatic complexity
I say go ahead and merge it. Same with Accidental complexity. Erudecorp ? * 04:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Accidental and essential complexity are not solely related to cyclomatic complexity. I would prefer they were left alone or merged with the discussion of No_Silver_Bullet --17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Neil (talk)
No merge. The only relation between cyclomatic complexity and essential/accidential complexity is that all three talk about complexity in computer programming. It would be reasonable to merge essential and accidental complexity, though. EivindEklund (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Confusing Example
Can someone please annotate the examples. Explain "why" the first one has a complexity of 1, and how the code can look reduced?
Same applies for the second example, it'd be nice to have an explanation as to "why" the complexity is more than 1. It's obviously a complex looking program, but that doesn't explain why it's an essential complexity.