Re: Check for redundancy

[Emanuel Berg]

tomas@tuxteam.de writes:

> *I* for one consider "hungarian notation" highly
> redundant -- let the type system cope with that,
> others may not).

Hungarian notation is a joke. The whole idea with high
level code is that you shouldn't think about that.
Now HN is only in systems like Visual Basic and M$
Access because they come with WYSIWYG GUI builders
which typically produce one million objects with
similar names. So to get to the properties of one such
object you'd start with the type (e.g., button) to
limit the set of object in your "search". Ah! I get
angry just by thinking about it.

> That said, I have seen this rough measure (gzip
> compression ratio) used as a rough "similarity
> measure": compress each file separately, slap both
> together and compress, and watch the reduction.

How about just compressing the entire source and make
a quota of the decrease in size? Those algorithms work
on recurring patterns being replaced by something
much shorter indicating the occurence of the pattern.
If there isn't anything recurring it can't be
compressed. So if it is totally factored up then it
can only be "literally" compressed, and not in terms
of the code logic, which should be much less for a big
project. Right? I don't know. Next time I'm here I'll
test this on some of my favorite software...

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573