An empirical evaluation of refactoring

• Autorzy: Wilking D. , Kahn U. F. , Kowalewski S.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper presents a process evaluation for the agile technique of refactoring based on the language C. The basis for this evaluation is made up by an experiment which is targeted on the aspects of increased maintainability and modifiability. Although the maintainability test shows a slight advantage for refactoring, results show no significant strength here. Concerning modifiability, the overhead of applying refactoring appears to even weaken other, positive effects. The analysis of secondary variables provides hints on advantages of the refactoring technique like reduced resource consumption and a reduced occurrence of complicated control structures.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

agile technique; refactoring based

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Czasopismo: e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal
• Rocznik: 2007
• Tom: Vol. 1, nr 1
• Strony: 27--42
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 36 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Wilking D.

autor

Kahn U. F.

autor

Kowalewski S.

• Embedded Software Laboratory, RWTH Aachen University

Bibliografia

• [1] P. Abrahamsson and J. Koskela. Extreme Programming: A Survey of Empirical Data from a Controlled Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE04), 2004.
• [2] P. Abrahamsson, J. Warsta, M. T. Siponen, and J. Ronkainen. New directions on agile methods: a comparative analysis. ICSE ’03: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 244–254, 2003.
• [3] V. Basili, L. Briand, S. Condon, Y.-M. Kim, W. L. Melo, and J. D. Valett. Understanding and Predicting the Process of Software Maintenance Releases. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, 1996.
• [4] J.-M. Burkhardt, F. De´etienne, and S. Wiedenbeck. Object-Oriented Program Comprehension: Effect of Expertise, Task and Phase. Empirical Software Engineering, 7:115–156, 2002.
• [5] J. Cohen. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1988.
• [6] A. C. Davison. Bootstrap Methods and their Application. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
• [7] B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC,1998.
• [8] M. Fowler. Refactoring. Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison Wesley, 1999.
• [9] A. Garrido and R. Johnson. Challenges of refactoring c programs. IWPSE: International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, 2002.
• [10] A. Garrido and R. Johnson. Refactoring c with conditional compilation. In 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2003), Montreal, Canada,2003.An Empirical Evaluation of Refactoring 41
• [11] B. Georgea and L. Williams. A structured experiment of test-driven development. Information and Software Technology, 46:337–342, 2004.
• [12] B. Geppert, A. Mockus, and F. R¨oßler. Refactoring for changeability: A way to go? In 11th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS 2005).
• [13] B. Geppert and F. Rosler. Effects of refactoring legacy protocol implementations: A case study. In METRICS ’04: Proceedings of the Software Metrics, 10th International Symposium on (METRICS’04), pages 14–25, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.
• [14] D. M. German. An empirical study of fine-grained software modifications. In 20th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, 2004, 2004.
• [15] S. Hanenberg, C. Oberschulte, and R. Unland. Refactoring of aspect-oriented software. In 4th Annual International Conference on Object-Oriented and Internet-based Technologies, Concepts, and Applications for a Networked World (Net.ObjectDays), 2004.
• [16] M. H¨ost, B. Regnell, and C. Wohlin. Using students as subjects – a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Software Engineering,5:201–214, 2000.
• [17] Y. Kataoka, T. Imai, H. Andou, and T. Fukaya. A quantitative evaluation of maintainability enhancement by refactoring. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM02), 2002.
• [18] M. Kim and D. Notkin. Using a clone genealogy extractor for understanding and supporting evolution of code clones. In MSR ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Mining software repositories, pages 1–5, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
• [19] M. Kim, V. Sazawal, D. Notkin, and G. Murphy. An empirical study of code clone genealogies.In ESEC/FSE-13: Proceedings of the 10th European software engineering conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, pages 187–196, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
• [20] R. Leitch and E. Stroulia. Understanding the economics of refactoring. In The 7th International Workshop on Economics-Driven Software Engineering Research, 2005.
• [21] H. Li, C. Reinke, and S. Thompson. Tool support for refactoring functional programs. In Haskell ’03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Haskell, pages 27–38, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM Press.
• [22] M. M¨antyl¨a, J. Vanhanen, and C. Lassenius. A taxonomy and an initial empirical study of bad smells in code. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM03), 2003.
• [23] B. McCloskey and E. Brewer. Astec: a new approach to refactoring c. In ESEC/FSE-13:Proceedings of the 10th European software engineering conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, pages 21–30,New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
• [24] T. Mens and T. Tourw´e. A survey of software refactoring. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(2), 2004.
• [25] J. Miller. Statistical significance testing – a panacea for software technology experiments? The Journal of Systems and Software, 73:183–192, 2004.42 Dirk Wilking, Umar Farooq Khan, Stefan Kowalewski
• [26] J. Miller, J. Daly, M. Wood, M. Roper, and A. Brooks. Statistical power and its subcomponents – missing and misunderstood concepts in empirical software engineering research.Journal of Information and Software Technology, 1997.
• [27] M. M¨uller and O. Hagner. Experiment about test-first programming. IEE Proceedings Software,149(5):131–136, October 2002.
• [28] M. Pizka. Straightening spaghetti code with refactoring? Software Engineering Research and Practice, 2004.
• [29] L. Prechelt. Kontrollierte Experimente in der Softwaretechnik. Springer, 2001.
• [30] J. Ratzinger, M. Fischer, and H. Gall. Improving evolvability through refactoring. In MSR ’05:Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Mining software repositories, New York,NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
• [31] F. Simon, F. Steinbr¨uckner, and C. Lewerentz. Metrics based refactoring. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 2001.
• [32] J. L. Simon. Resampling: The New Statistics. Resampling Stats, 1999.
• [33] D. I. K. Sjøberg, B. Anda, E. Arisholm, T. Dyb°a, M. Jørgensen, A. Karahasanovi´c, and M. Vok´aˇc. Challenges and recommendations when increasing the realism of controlled software engineering experiments. ESERNET 2001–2003, LNCS 2765, pages 24–38, 2003.
• [34] J. B. Todman and P. Dugard. Single-Case and Small-N Experimental Designs: A Practical Guide to Randomization Tests. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
• [35] B. Walter and B. Pietrzak. Multi-criteria detection of bad smells in code with uta method.In H. Baumeister, M. Marchesi, and M. Holcombe, editors, Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, XP 2005, Sheffield, UK, 2005. Springer.
• [36] C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. H¨ost, M. C. Ohlson, B. Regnell, and A. Wessl´en. Experimentation in Software Engineering. An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000