Talk:Programming complexity

Computing Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Agreed and changed accordingly. Groupthink 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]