An Empirical Study of Software Design Practices

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Volumn SE-12, Issue 2, 1986, Pages 264-271

  Card, David N ^a   Church, Victor E ^a   Agresti, William W ^a  

^a System Sciences Division Computer Sciences Corporation ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Coupling; fault rate; module cost; reuse; size; Software Engineering Laboratory; strength; unreferenced variables

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES - FORTRAN; PROBABILITY;

FAULT RATE;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 0022667126     PISSN: 00985589     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/TSE.1986.6312942     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. D. L. Parnas, “On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules,” Commun. ACM, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1053–1058, Dec. 1972.
2. B. Liskov and S. Zilles, “Specification techniques for data abstractions,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. SE-1, pp. 7–19, 1975.
3. W. P. Stevens, G. J. Myers, and L. L. Constantine, “Structured design,” IBM Syst. J., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 115–139, 1974.
4. D. N. Card, F. E. McGarry, G. T. Page et al., The Software Engineering Laboratory, NASA/GSFC, Feb. 1982.
5. B. W. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.
6. T. DeMarco, Controlling Software Projects. New York: Yourdon Press, 1982.
7. L. A. Marascuilo and M. McSweeney, Nonparametric and Distribution Free Methods for the Social Sciences. California: Brooks/Cole, 1977.
8. B. Meyer, “Principles of package design,” Commun. ACM, vol. 25, 385–395, 1982.
9. B. W. Kernighan and P. S. Plauger, The Elements of Programming Style. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
10. V. R. Basili and B. T. Perricone, “Software errors and complexity: An empirical investigation,” Commun. ACM, vol. 27, pp. 42–52, 1984.
11. V. Y. Shen, T. Yu, S. M. Thebaut, and L. R. Paulsen, “Identifying error-prone software—An empirical study,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. SE-11, pp. 317–324, 1985.
12. D. N. Card, G. T. Page, F. E. McGarry, “Criteria for software modularization,” ularization, in Proc. Eighth Int. Conf. Software Eng., 1985.
13. P. C. Belford, R. C. Berg, and T. L. Hannan, “Central flow control software development: A case study of the effectiveness of software engineering techniques,” in Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. Software Eng., 1979, pp. 85–93.
14. G. J. Myers, Composite/Structured Design. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold, trand-Reinhold, 1978.
15. R. D. Cruickshank and J. E. Gaffney, “Measuring the development process: Software design coupling and strength matrices,” in Proc. Fifth Annu. Software Eng. Workshop, NASA/GSFC, Nov. 1980.
16. T. J. Emerson, “A discriminant metric for module cohesion,” Proc. Seventh Int. Conf Software Eng., 1984, pp. 294–303.
17. D. A. Troy and S. H. Zweben, “Measuring the quality of structured designs,” J. Syst. Software, vol. 2, pp. 113–120, 1981.
18. J. B. Lohse and S. H. Zweben, “Experimental evaluation of software design principles: An investigation into the effect of module coupling on system modifiability,” J. Syst. Software, vol. 4, pp. 301–308, 1984.
19. G. A. Miller, “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information,” Psychol. Rev., vol. 63, pp. 81–97, 1956.
20. SAMM (System Activity Modeling Method) Primer, Boeing Computer Services Co., Doc. BCS-10167, 1978.
21. F. E. McGarry, “Measuring software technology,” in Proc. Seventh Annu. Software Eng. Workshop, NASA/GSFC, Dec. 1982.
22. V. R. Basili, R. W. Selby, and T. Phillips, “Metric analysis and data validation across FORTRAN projects,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. SE-9, pp. 652–663, 1983.
23. M. Metcalf, “Has FORTRAN a future?,” presented at the Europhys. Conf. Software Eng. Methods, Tools Comput. Phys., Aug. 1984.