LoC isn't a perfect metric but it is very easy to relate to. Given some extra context like the type of application, the size of the company or the age of the codebase one can mentally account for some of the weaknesses of using LoC as a metric.
If this were a study using LoC as a sole metric with no other context I'd agree with you but LoC seems perfectly adequate in this case.
Halstead complexity? Cyclomatic complexity? Those are just a couple of famous, old-school ones.
Software metrics is a major research area, and dates back to the 60s. The paper "Software Metrics: A Roadmap" has a good summary of the state-of-the-art as of 2000.
Could you, off the top of your head, give a rough idea of what cyclomatic complexity or Halstead complexity corresponds to a "large" project? In fact, given even a very simple code snippet, could you state on a cursory examination what these complexity values would be? Could most people reading this discussion?
If not, your alternatives don't serve the required purpose. Everyone gets that a project with 10 million lines of code is big. Whether it's bigger in any useful sense than another project of 8 million lines isn't really the point, and any alternative that doesn't have an immediate intuition for people reading the discussion isn't helping much.
You're right; in this case it probably is adequate. I'm by no means an expert programmer (alas, I come from the business development/marketing side of things), and I used to measure things in LoC as if it were a be-all end-all metric. Then I started programming and realized how ridiculous that is.
It's probably the best metric to use, I just wish there were something better.
What's worse, in my experience, is when people are unable to provide the necessary information, even when questioned directly, because they don't understand or appreciate the assumptions they've been making.
That's the case - no adverts any of the bbc's television channels or radio stations in the UK. Most broadcasts are available on iPlayer too, always without adverts.
My mother doesn't even know what a VPN is. Even if she did, she wouldn't know how to use one to watch the bbc coverage abroad as a license fee paying UK-citizen.
And if you encounter a term that you missed by skipping the introduction it's easier, with a book, to quickly find where it's defined courtesy of the index.
Or courtesy of being able to quickly scan and skim the pages. And that's the same reason why videoutorials are inferior to traditional, text-and-screeshots-based tutorials. A point worth keeping in mind IMO.
Completely agree. However, the advantages of the Coursera courses are that they follow a schedule, have quizzes and assignments, and have active forums where you can ask (and answer) questions.
I easy to buy a book on an interesting subject (I do it all the time), but it's much harder to actually read it, especially if it's on a challenging topic.
For me, the best solution would be if the courses had the material available in text form as well. Then you could choose how to learn (video or text - I would choose text).
I have the same problems with books. I think this is because books tend to cover a lot of material. A short course on the other hand can focus in a self contained subset, which you can expand later.
Right. So maybe, the ideal education material is more what was imagined in the past. An interactive book with quizzes including videos and high-res pictures in the places where it makes sense.
udacity has gone too far the other way for me. It seems very slick but I switched off after a couple of minutes because I felt like I was watching a kids tv show.
I am taking the udacity statistics 101 course and while I agree with the statement you make, if you visit the forums there are plenty of people having trouble with the current material itself. The last assignment had a fill in the blanks proof of the maximum likelihood estimator. Some people were complaining on the forum that it did not belong to a 101 course. Either ways I am glad that the course is being offered. It may not be the best introduction to statistics I get but it at least pushes me into starting to read about statistics.
That wasn't supposed to be a comment on the material, simply the way it's being presented. This was a discrete mathematics course, don't have time to look it up right now. (edit: Relatives are faffing - here it is: http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/cs221/CourseRev/1)
I personally think there's room for many services like coursera and udacity to serve different levels of academic experience and expectations.
I realise my initial comment might have come across as more confrontational than I intended. I definitely agree that there's room for services catering to different academic experience and exceptions. What I wanted to highlight was even the hand-holding approach of the udacity instructors might be to cater to absolute beginners.
Great to know. I've been working on a third option that's less lecturey and less condecending. People can complain about it profusely next month when it launches.
I've been watching the lectures for the same course. Having them split into short self-contained videos (~5-15mins) has made it very easy to fit in around university and a toddler.
For example, whenever I do the washing up I put my tablet on the windowsill and watch a video. I've also been watching them instead of browsing the web as a more structured break when studying. The fixed length of a video makes it much easier to be disciplined with the length of my breaks. The subject matter is different enough and presented in such a digestible way that it really is a good break.
http://goo.gl/xscqD - image search for Bristol Temple Meads bike rack
Fortunately my trip between uni/childminder/home is quite short so I'm going to try running it when term starts again.