Skip to main content

Use Discretion when Reviewing Code Metrics

Code metrics are interesting creatures. Some are just raw numbers, such as depth of inheritance or lines of code, while others are a bit more subjective, like a maintainability index. But ultimately they are all meaningless without broader context and an understanding of the code.

As a brief example, consider the following C# function which accepts a string and returns the 40-character hexadecimal representation of the string's SHA1 hash.

public static String Sha1(String text)
{
using (SHA1Managed sha1 = new SHA1Managed())
{
Byte[] textBytes = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(text);
Byte[] hashBytes = sha1.ComputeHash(textBytes);
return Convert.ToBase64String(hashBytes);
}
}
The function accomplishes one task. Variables are defined closest to their usage. Function calls are clear and do not nest other function calls. Even using ( ) is used so the run-time can automatically dispose of the SHA1Managed resource. Yet a scan using Visual Studio 2010's Code Metrics returns a maintainability index of 71.

The index increases to 73 when the definition of variables move outside of the using ( ) block.
public static String Sha1(String text)
{
Byte[] textBytes, hashBytes;
using (SHA1Managed sha1 = new SHA1Managed())
{
textBytes = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(text);
hashBytes = sha1.ComputeHash(textBytes);
}
return Convert.ToBase64String(hashBytes);
}
Eliminating the variables altogether will increase the maintainability index to 76.

public static String Sha1(String text)
{
using (SHA1Managed sha1 = new SHA1Managed())
{
return
Convert.ToBase64String(sha1.ComputeHash(
Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(text)));
}
}
76 is better than 71, but is the latter code really more readable and maintainable?

I posted this example to StackOverflow and asked if anyone knew why the metric would even increase in the first place. The responders agreed it is counter-intuitive, and the consensus is that it is better to focus on writing clean, concise, readable code.

An extremely low-scoring metric can be an indicator that something should be flagged for review, but use your discretion and judgment when reviewing the code. Use the report as a tool to identify possible problems and not a set of requirements to be met.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about ...

Learning Prolog

I'm not quite sure exactly I was searching for, but somehow I serendipitously stumbled upon the site learnprolognow.org a few months ago. It's the home for an introductory Prolog programming course. Logic programming offers an interesting way to think about your problems; I've been doing so much procedural and object-oriented programming in the past decade that it really took effort to think at a higher level! I found the most interesting features to be definite clause grammars (DCG), and unification. Difference lists are very powerful and Prolog's DCG syntax makes it easy to work with them. Specifying a grammar such as: s(s(NP,VP)) --> np(NP,X,Y,subject), vp(VP,X,Y). np(np(DET,NBAR,PP),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y), pp(PP). np(np(DET,NBAR),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y). np(np(PRO),X,Y,Z) --> pro(PRO,X,Y,Z). vp(vp(V),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y). vp(vp(V,NP),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y), np(NP,_,_,object). nbar(nbar(JP),X,3) --> jp(JP,X). pp(pp(PREP,N...

Does Esperanto-USA have a Transparency Problem?

I’ve been an active member of Esperanto-USA for many years, even serving on its board of directors. I wanted to help build a strong, healthy national organization that effectively promotes Esperanto in the United States. But when I stepped down from the board, that desire didn’t end. I continued to bring problems to the attention of the organization, ranging from member rights to strategy to proper governance. I’ve decided to be public about this latest issue because of its seriousness and because of how the board has been secretive about it. The membership deserves to know what is done in their name. What Happened In November 2025, the board of Esperanto-USA sent a formal letter to Esperanto-Ligo en Israelo (ELI) with a copy to UEA, concerning an article published in ELI’s bulletin. The article, written by Eduardo Topol, contained inflammatory political content. And although I agree that the article was extremely offensive, the board’s decision to inj...