note
Masem
Actually, I was also approproaching orthogonality from a principle component (PCAnalysis) standpoint (though for experimental data analysis).
<P>
Now to go over the heads of everyone else that has no idea what PCA is :-), the programming equivalent is that you have M 'overall functions' that your software will want to do. A good refactoring down to an orthogonal set in programming should result in N small functions, with N >> M. As [jeroenes] indicates, this is ill-defined from a PCA, as with PCA, you'd want to select a small number ( < M ) to approximate the job. <b>However</b>, unstated in the refactoring process is the fact that you should be thinking in the future and the past, and in reality, you might have P projects, each with M_sub_i (i = 1 to P) 'overall functions', such that the total of all functions over all projects past and present and future will result in M', with M' >> N >> M.
<P>
In plain text, you should be refactoring to find an orthogonal set of functions that are reusable for other problems, including functions that might have been created already, and ones that might be part of future programs. This is the same conclusion the parent thread reaches as well as numerous other texts on programming, for for those with a mathematical bent, there's some empricalness to it as well.
<P>
<P>
-----------------------------------------------------
<BR>
<I>
<A HREF="http://mneylon.masemware.com/">Dr. Michael K. Neylon</A> - <a href="mailto:mneylon-pm@masemware.com">mneylon-pm@masemware.com</a>
||
"You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#808080"><I>It's not what you know, but knowing how to find it if you don't know that's important</I></FONT>
</I>
116172
116281