An initial approach to assessing program comprehensibility using spatial complexity, number of concepts and typographical style

Proceedings - Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, WCRE

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 246-255

  Mohan, Andrew ^a   Gold, Nicolas ^a   Layzell, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Program comprehension; Software evolution; Software maintenance; Software quality

Indexed keywords

CONCEPT ASSIGNMENT; PROGRAM COMPREHENSION; SOFTWARE EVOLUTION; SOFTWARE QUALITY;

COBOL (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); CODES (SYMBOLS); COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

METRIC SYSTEM;

EID: 18144409851     PISSN: 10951350     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/WCRE.2004.11     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. nd Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC '98), pp172-178.
2. Benander, A.C. & Benander, B.A. (1989). An Empirical Study of COBOL Programs Via a Style Analyzer: The Benefits of Good Programming Style; The Journal of Systems and Software, vol.10, pp271-279.
3. Biggerstaff, T.J., Mitbander B.G. & Webster, D.E. (1993). The Concept Assignment Problem in Program Understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Baltimore, Maryland, May 17-21, 1993, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993, pp482-498.
4. Brooks, R. (1983). Towards a theory of the comprehension of computer programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, pp543-554, June 1983.
5. Chhabra, J.K., Aggarwal, K.K. & Singh, Y. (2003). Code and data spatial complexity: two important software understandability measures. Information and Software Technology, vol.45, pp539-546.
6. Crosby, M.E., Scholtz, J. & Wiedeneck, S. (2002). The Roles Beacons Play in Comprehension for Novice and Expert Programmers; PPIG-14 Annual Workshop, 18-21 June 2002, Brunel University, UK, pp58-73, www.ppig.org/ workshops/14th-programme.html.
7. DeYoung, G.E., Kampen, G.R. & Topolski, J.M. (1982). Analyzer-generated and human-judged predictors of computer program readability. ACM Proceedings of the conference on Human factors in computing systems, Gaithersburg, Maryland, U.S., pp223 - 228.
8. Douce, C.R., Layzell, P.J. & Buckley, J. (1999). Spatial measures of software complexity. PPIG-11 Annual Workshop, 4-7 January 1999, University of Leeds, UK, pp36-45. www.ppig.org/workshops/11th-programme.html.
9. Dromey, R.G. (1995). A Model of Software Product Quality; IEEE Trans. of Software Engineering, vol.21, nos.2, pp146-162.
10. Elshoff, J.L. & Marcotty, M. (1982). Improving Computer Program Readability to Aid Modification; Communications of the ACM, vol.23, nos.8, pp512-521.
11. Gold, N.E. & Bennett, K.H. (2002). Hypothesis-Based Concept Assignment in Software Maintenance: IEE Proceedings Software, vol.149, no.4, pp103-110.
12. Gold, N. & Mohan, A. (2003). A Framework for Understanding Conceptual Changes in Evolving Source Code; Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, Amsterdam, 22-26 September, 2003, pp431-439.
13. Koenemann, J. & Robertson, S. (1991). Expert Problem Solving Strategies for Program Comprehension; Proceedings ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp125-130.
14. Harman, M. & Hierons, R. (2001). An Overview of Program Slicing. Software Focus, vol.2, pp85-92.
15. Lehman, M.M. & Belady, L.A. (1985). Program Evolution, Processes of Software Change, Academic Press Inc. Ltd..
16. Lientz, B.P. & Swanson, E.B. (1980). Software Maintenance Management; Addison-Wesley, Reading M.A.
17. Mayrhauser, A.von & Vans, A.M. (1995). Program Comprehension during Software Maintenance and Evolution; IEEE Computer, vol.28, pp44-55.
18. Miara, R.J., Musselman, J.A., Navarro, J.A., Shneiderman, B. (1983). Program Indentation and Comprehensibility; Communications of the ACM, vol.26, nos.11, pp861-867.
19. th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, Ban, Italy, June 24-26, 2004, pp236-240.
20. Norcio, A.F. (1981). Indentation, Documentation and Programmer Comprehension. Proc. Human Factors in Computer Systems, ACM, Washington DC, pp118-120.
21. th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, IEEE Computer Society, pp71-78, Toronto, Ont., Canada, 12-13 May, 2001.
22. th ACM Computer Science Conference Proceedings, pp244-247.
23. Oman, P. & Cook, C. (1990). Typographic style is more than cosmetic. Communications of the ACM, vol.33, nos.5, pp506-520.
24. Pennington, N. (1987). Stimulus Structure and Mental Representations in Expert Comprehension of Computer Programs. Cognitive Psychology, 19, pp295-341.
25. th June 2002, pp271-278.
26. Shneiderman, B. (1980). Software Psychology - Human Factors in Computer and Information Systems; Little, Brown and Company.
27. Tenny, T. (1988). Program Readability: Procedures Versus Comments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol.14, no.9, pp1271-1279.
28. Wiedenbeck, S. (1991). The initial stages of program comprehension; International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol.35, nos.4, pp517-540.
29. Wilde, N., Buckellew, M., Page, H., Rajlich, V. & Pounds, L. (2003). A comparison of methods for locating features in legacy software; The Journal of Systems and Software, vol.65, pp105-114.