Quality Factors and Coding Standards - a Comparison Between Open Source Forges

Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science

Volumn 233, Issue C, 2009, Pages 89-103

  Capiluppi, Andrea ^a   Boldyreff, Cornelia ^a   Beecher, Karl ^a   Adams, Paul J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LINCOLN   (United Kingdom)

^b Sirius Corporation Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Coding Standards; Complexity; Open Source Software

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; JAVA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; OPEN SYSTEMS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

BEST PRACTICES; CODING STANDARDS; COMPLEX PICTURES; COMPLEXITY; DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; HIGH-QUALITY SOFTWARES; HIGHER QUALITY SOFTWARES; OPEN SOURCE PARADIGMS; OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE; OPEN SOURCES; QUALITY FACTORS; SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT; SOURCEFORGE;

STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 62849094524     PISSN: 15710661     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.entcs.2009.02.063     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. International Organization for Standardization. Software Engineering - Product Quality - Part 1: Quality Model. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001. ISO/IEC 9126-1:2001(E) (2001)
2. Basili V.R., Caldiera G., and Rombach D.H. The goal question metric approach. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering (1994) 528-532. http://sdqweb.ipd.uka.de/wiki/GQM see also
3. Beecher, K., C. Boldyreff, A. Capiluppi and S. Rank, Evolutionary success of open source software: an investigation into exogenous drivers, Electronic Communications of the EASST: ERCIM Symposium on Software Evolution 8 (2007)
4. Briand, L.C. and J. Wüst, The impact of design properties on development cost in object-oriented systems, in: METRICS '01: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Software Metrics (2001), p. 260
5. Capiluppi, A. and C. Boldyreff, Identifying and improving reusability based on coupling patterns, in: ICSR'08: 10th International Conference on Software Reuse, Beijing China, 25-29 May 2008
6. Capiluppi, A., A.E. Faria and J.F. Ramil, Exploring the relationship between cumulative change and complexity in an open source system, In CSMR'05: 9th Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (2005), pp. 21-29
7. Chen, K. and D. Wagner, Large-scale analysis of format string vulnerabilities in debian linux, in: PLAS'07: Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on Programming languages and analysis for security (2007), pp. 75-84
8. Crowston K., Howison J., and Annabi H. Information systems success in free and open source software development: Theory and measures. Software Process Improvement and Practice (2006) 123-148
9. Dalgaard P. Introductory Statistics with R (2002), Springer 89-90
10. English, R. and C.M. Schweik, Identifying success and tragedy of floss commons: A preliminary classification of sourceforge.net projects, in: International Workshop on Emerging Trends in FLOSS Research and Development, 2007
11. Ghezzi C., Jazayeri M., and Mandrioli D. Fundamentals of Software Engineering (2002), Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA
12. Godfrey, M.W. and Q. Tu, Evolution in open source software: A case study, in: ICSM, 2000, pp. 131-142
13. Gorton, I. and L. Zhu, Tool support for just-in-time architecture reconstruction and evaluation: an experience report, in: ICSE'05: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering, 2005, pp. 514-523
14. Halloran, T.J. and W.L. Scherlis, High quality and open source software practices, in: Meeting Challenges and Surviving Success: 2nd ICSE Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering, Orlando, FL, 2002
15. Halstead M. Elements of Software Science (1977), Elsevier, New York
16. Henricson, M. and E. Nyquist, Programming in C++, rules and recommendations, Technical Report M 90 01 18 Uen (1992). URL citeseer.ist.psu.edu/henricson92programming.html
17. Henry S., Kafura D., and Harris K. On the relationships among three software metrics. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 10 (1981) 81-88
18. Johnson S. Lint, a c program checker. Unix Programmer's Manual (1978), AT&T Bell Laboratories. URL citeseer.ist.psu.edu/johnson78lint.html
19. Jones C. Software metrics: Good, bad and missing. Computer 27 (1994) 98-100
20. Kim, H. and C. Boldyreff, Software metrics applicable to uml models: An investigation and an implementation, in: Proceedings of QAOOSE2002, 2002
21. Kim, M., L. Bergman, T. Lau and D. Notkin, An ethnographic study of copy and paste programming practices in oopl, in: ISESE'04: Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (2004), pp. 83-92
22. McCabe T.J. A complexity measure. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2 (1976) 308-320
23. McCabe T.J., and Butler C.W. Design complexity measurement and testing. Commun. ACM 32 (1989) 1415-1425
24. Meyers S., and Klaus M. A first look at c++ program analyzers. Dr. Dobbs Journal 22 (1997)
25. Mockus A., Fielding R., and Herbsleb J. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and mozilla. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11 (2002) 309-346
26. Mohan, A. and N. Gold, Programming style changes in evolving source code, iwpc 00 (2004), p. 236
27. Oman P., and Hagemeister J. Construction and testing of polynomials predicting software maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software 24 (1994) 251-266
28. Oman P.W., and Cook C.R. Typographic style is more than cosmetic. Commun. ACM 33 (1990) 506-520
29. Pfleeger S.L. Software engineering: the production of quality software (1987), Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA
30. Stamelos I., Angelis L., Oikonomou A., and Bleris G. Code quality analysis in open source software development. Information Systems Journal (2002) 43-60
31. In: Succi G., and Marchesi M. (Eds). Extreme programming examined (2001), Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA
32. Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1 (1945) 80-83