title: What is the fascination with code metrics?
body: <p>I've seen a number of 'code metrics' related questions on SO lately, and have to wonder what the fascination is? Here are some recent examples:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/187289/what-code-metrics-convince-you-that-provided-code-is-crappy">what code metrics convince you that provided code is crappy</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/184071/when-if-ever-is-number-of-lines-of-code-a-useful-metric">when if ever is number of lines of code a useful metric</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/195856/writing-quality-tests">writing quality tests</a></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>In my mind, no metric can substitute for a code review, though:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>some metrics sometimes may indicate places that need to be reviewed, and</li>
  <li>radical changes in metrics over short time frames may indicate places that need to be reviewed</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>But I cannot think of a single metric that by itself always indicates 'good' or 'bad' code - there are always exceptions and reasons for things that the measurements cannot see.</p>
  
  <p>Is there some magical insight to be gained from code metrics that I've overlooked? Are lazy programmers/managers looking for excuses not to read code? Are people presented with giant legacy code bases and looking for a place to start? What's going on?</p>
  
  <blockquote>Note: I have asked some of these questions on the specific threads both in answers and comments and got no replies, so I thought I should ask the community in general as perhaps I am missing something. It would be nice to run a metrics batch job and not actually have to read other people's code (or my own) ever again, I just don't think it is practical!</blockquote>
  
  <p>EDIT: I am familiar with most if not all of the metrics being discussed, I just don't see the point of them in isolation or as arbitrary standards of quality.</p>