The control structure diagram: An overview and initial evaluation

Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 131-158

  Cross II, James H ^a   Hendrix, T Dean ^a   Maghsoodloo, Saeed ^a  

^a AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ada; Empirical evaluation; Graphical representation; Reverse engineering; Software visualization

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; C (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); CODES (SYMBOLS); COMPUTER GRAPHICS; JAVA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; REVERSE ENGINEERING; ADA (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; COMPUTER HARDWARE DESCRIPTION LANGUAGES; COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE; GRAPH THEORY; STATISTICAL METHODS;

CONTROL STRUCTURE DIAGRAM (CSD); EMPIRICAL EVALUATION; GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION; PROGRAM DESIGN LANGUAGE (PDL); PROGRAM DESIGN LANGUAGES (PDL); REVERSE ENGINEERING; SOFTWARE PACKAGE GRASP; SOFTWARE VISUALIZATION;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION;

EID: 0031624544     PISSN: 13823256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1008085415145     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Aoyama, M. 1989. Design specification in japan: Tree-structured charts. IEEE Software: 31-37.
2. Baecker, R. M., DiGiano, C., and Marcus, A. 1997. Software visualization for debugging. Communications of the ACM 40(4): 44-54.
3. Baecker, R. M., and Marcus, A. 1990. Human Factors and Typography for More Readable Programs. ACM Press.
4. Barnes, J. G. P. 1984. Programming in Ada. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 2 edition.
5. Booch, G., and Bryan, D. 1994. Software Engineering with Ada. Benjamin/Cummings, third edition edition.
6. Chikofsky, E., and Cross, J. 1990. Reverse engineering and design recovery - a taxonomy. IEEE Software: 13-17.
7. Conover, W. J. 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
8. Cross, J., Chikofski, E. J., and May, C. H. 1992. Reverse engineering. Advances in Computers 35: 199-254.
9. Cross, J., and Sheppard, S.V. 1988. The control structure diagram: An automated graphical representation for software. Proceedings of the 21st Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, vol. 2, IEEE Computer Society Press, 446-454.
10. Cross, J., Sheppard, S. V, and Carlisle, W. H. 1990. Control structure diagrams for ada. Journal of Pascal, Ada, and Modula 2 9(5).
11. Cross, J. H. 1994. Improving comprehensibility of ada with control structure diagrams. Proceedings of the Software Technology Conference, distributed on CD-ROM, 25 pages, April 11-14, Salt Lake City, Utah.
12. Cross, J. H., Chang, K. H., and Hendrix, T. D. 1996. Grasp/ada95: Visualization with control structure diagrams. CrossTalk Journal of Defense Software Engineering 9(1): 27-45.
13. Cross, J. H., and Hendrix, T. D. 1996. Software Visualization, volume 7 of Series on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, chapter Language Independent Program Visualization, 27-45. World Scientific.
14. Curtis, B., Sheppard, S., Kruesi-Bailey, E., Bailey, J., and Boehm-Davis, D. 1989. Experimental evaluation of software documentation formats. Journal of Systems and Software 9: 167-207.
15. Green, T., and Petre, M. 1992. When visual programs are harder to read than textual programs. Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE-6), Budapest, Hungary.
16. Green, T., Petre, M., and Bellamy, R. 1991. Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: A test of superlativism against the match-mismatch conjecture. Empirical Studies of Programmers Fourth Workshop. Ablex.
17. Kissel, G. 1995. Effect of computer experience on subjective and objective software usability measures. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 284-295.
18. Linger, R. 1993. Cleanroom software engineering for zero-defect software. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, Baltimore, MD, 2-13.
19. Marshall, T. E., Byrd, T. A., Gardiner, L. R., and Rainer, R. K. 1998. Technology acceptance and performance: An investigation into requisite knowledge (forthcoming). Information Resources Management Journal.
20. Martin, J., and McClure, C. 1985. Diagramming Techniques for Analysts and Programmers. Prentice-Hall.
21. McQuaid, P. A., Chang, K. H., and Cross, J. H. 1995. A complexity metric to aid software testing and maintenance. Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute 2.
22. Moher, T., Mak, D., Blumenthal, B., and Leventhal, L. 1993. Comparing the comprehensibility of textual and graphical programs: The case of petri nets. Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fifth Workshop, 137-161.
23. Petre, M. 1995. Why looking isn't always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. Communications of the ACM 38(6): 33-44.
24. Price, B. A., Baecker, R. M., and Small, I. S. 1993. A principled taxonomy of software visualization. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 4(3): 211-266.
25. Raeder, G. 1985. A survey of current graphical programming techniques. IEEE Computer 18(8): 11-25.
26. Scanlan, D. A. 1989. Structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode: An experimental comparison. IEEE Software: 28-36.
27. Selby, R. 1985. A comparison of software verification techniques. NASA Software Engineering Laboratory Series SEL-85-001, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.
28. Shu, N. C. 1988. Visual Programming. New York, New York: Van Norstrand Reinhold, Inc.
29. Tripp, L. L. 1989. A survey of graphical notations for program design. ACM Software Engineering Notes 13(4): 39-44.