📊 Improving Analysis Code

[dpshelio]

Open the repository for this exercise. You will find a brief description of each example in its README.md file.

1. Discuss the code with your group. What problems do you see with it? Why?
2. Write below your comments mentioning your group number. For now, focus on the
   problems, and don't make any changes yet!

[EzAubergine]

From Group#12
Problems:

1. Inputting of lines (from reading files) can be written as a function since the codes are repeated. e.g. making a 'read_file_by_lines' function
2. Comments should be added to at least explain the main purpose and steps of analysis
3. 'i' and 'j' in loops should be replaced with meaningful iterator (e.g. 'result' in 'results')
4. Renaming workflows with more meaningful names (state the differences), or explain the usage difference at the start of document

[L-Amos]

• Lots of reused code across the two files.
• Comments just say what the code does, not why.
• In the second file, previous code is commented out for no discernible reason; if you need to return to this previous code you can revert to a previous commit.
• Unnecessary import.
• In many cases list comprehension can be used without losing readability.
• No useful docstrings or comments, so difficult to understand the purpose or context of the code.

Group 9

[cansuoktem]

From Group 15:

1. There is repeated code for reading the files, all of this should be written in one function
2. Not necessary to import all of math
3. Reused functionality across both workflows, logic could be separately encapsulated, could be inherited
4. There is not enough comments explaining
5. Can replace loops with iterator