Talk:Programming complexity

Reference #4 leads to Access Denied XML snippet
Not sure why, but Ref #4 leads to an Access Denied XML snippet Hydrogen18 (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment
I'm marking this article as Stub-class for a start, for the low quality of remaining content. But software metrics are important, so the importance is Mid (it could be High indeed). --Blaisorblade (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge
'''It has been suggested [by User:Groupthink] that Cyclomatic complexity be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)'''

That's OK with me, especially with this page (Programming Complexity) becoming a redirect to Cyclomatic complexity. Erudecorp ? * 09:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge this into Cyclomatic complexity instead: The phrase "programming complexity" sounds vague/imprecise to me. A Google search also confirms this: a search for "programming complexity" yields 52k results while "cyclomatic complexity" gets 127k. -- intgr [talk] 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed and changed accordingly. Groupthink 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion on the subject
This article confuses together the complexity of an algorithm (mentioned in the given link), and the complexity of production of the software in software engineering (see cyclomatic complexity, the link to Software crisis). As it stands, the article is of such low quality to deserve almost complete deletion of content; the topic is important however, and it deserves a page on Wikipedia. Possibly, however, this page could be simply changed into a redirect to Software metrics, or merged into it (I'll propose a merger with that article).

To start fixing it, I'm removing everything about algorithmic complexity, including the (undiscussed) merger proposal, and the single reference (which is about algorithmic complexity). I hope there is no need to open a discussion to close the merger proposal. --Blaisorblade (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation wanted
″As the number of entities increases, the number of interactions between them would increase exponentially″ I stumbled upon this article while looking for a reference for exactly this assumption, as it is not obvious. Would you please include a citation? Thanks. Alvaro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.136.29.212 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say it's far from obvious. Personally I can't even find a viewpoint where this would be correct:  How would merely adding an entity have anything to do with the number of interactions?  Entities don't just interact with each other spontaneously, right?  To me this sentence just screams "bogus" and it should be removed, unless it can be clarified and sourced properly.
 * -- netvor 2A00:CA8:A1F:CD0:51A0:6A12:10E6:29C3 (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)