Assessing programming language impact on development and maintenance: A study on C and C++

Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 171-180

  Bhattacharya, Pamela ^a   Neamtiu, Iulian ^a  

^a University of California Riverside   (United States)

Author keywords

developer productivity; empirical studies; high level languages; software evolution; software quality

Indexed keywords

C++ CODES; COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE; DEVELOPER PRODUCTIVITY; DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; FIREFOX; KEY FACTORS; NOVEL METHODOLOGY; OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS; PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; SOFTWARE EVOLUTION; SOFTWARE QUALITY;

ADA (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); BLENDING; COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE; COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; PRODUCTIVITY; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGES;

EID: 79959917916     PISSN: 02705257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1985793.1985817     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (44)

1. F. B. e. Abreu and W. Melo. Evaluating the impact of object-oriented design on software quality. In METRICS '96.
2. Bazaar. http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mysql/mysql-server/.
3. P. Bhattacharya and I. Neamtiu. Higher-level Languages are Indeed Better: A Study on C and C++. Technical report, University of California, Riverside, March 2010. http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~pamelab/tr.pdf.
4. Blender Bug Tracker. https://projects.blender.org/tracker.
5. Blender Forum. http://www.blender.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16694.
6. https://svn.blender.org/svnroot/bf-blender/tags/.
7. F. P. Brooks, Jr. The Mythical Man-Month. Addison-Wesley, 1975.
8. Bugzilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/.
9. C. J. Burgess. Software quality issues when choosing a programming language. Technical report, University of Bristol, UK, 1995.
10. DedaSys LLC. Programming Language Popularity. http://www.langpop.com/.
11. R. Denis-Courmont. Personal communication, based on experience with VLC development, June 2010.
12. R. Fateman. Software Fault Prevention by Language Choice: Why C is Not My Favorite Language. Technical report, University of California, Berkeley, 2000.
13. J. Fernández-Ramil, D. Izquierdo-Cortazar, and T. Mens. What does it take to develop a million lines of open source code? In OSS, pages 170-184, 2009.
14. Firefox Statistics. http://www.computerworld. com/s/article/9140819/1-in- 4-now-use-Firefox-to-surf-the-Web.
15. M. Fischer, M. Pinzger, and H. Gall. Populating a release history database from version control and bug tracking systems. In ICSM '03.
16. A. Hars and S. Ou. Working for free? motivations for participating in open-source projects. Int. J. Electron. Commerce, 6(3):25-39, 2002.
17. N. M. Holtz and W. J. Rasdorf. An evaluation of programming languages and language features for engineering software development. Engineering with Computers, 1988.
18. Z. Hongyu, Z. Xiuzhen, and G. Ming. Predicting defective software components from code complexity measures. In ISPRDC '07.
19. C. Jones. Backfiring: Converting lines-of-code to function points. Computer, pages 87-88, 1995.
20. S. Kim, T. Zimmermann, K. Pan, and E. J. J. Whitehead. Automatic identification of bug-introducing changes. In ASE, 2006.
21. S. Koch. Exploring the effects of coordination and communication tools on the efficiency of open source projects using data envelopment analysis. IFIP, 2007.
22. S. Koch. Exploring the effects of sourceforge.net coordination and communication tools on the efficiency of open source projects using data envelopment analysis. Empirical Softw. Eng., 14(4):397-417, 2009.
23. J. Koskinen. Software maintenance costs, Sept 2003. http://users.jyu.fi/ ~koskinen/smcosts.htm.
24. Launchpad. https://launchpad.net/mysql-server.
25. M. Lipow. Number of faults per line of code. TSE'82.
26. T. J. McCabe. A complexity measure. In ICSE'76.
27. T. Mens, M. Wermelinger, S. Ducasse, S. Demeyer, R. Hirschfeld, and M. Jazayeri. Challenges in software evolution. In IWPSE '05, pages 13-22, 2005.
28. A. Mockus, R. T. Fielding, and J. D. Herbsleb. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and mozilla. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 11(3), 2002.
29. A. Mockus and L. G. Votta. Identifying reasons for software changes using historic databases. ICSM'00, pages 120-130.
30. I. Myrtveit and E. Stensrud. An empirical study of software development productivity in C and C++. In NIK'08.
31. MySQL Statistics. http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/.
32. N. Nagappan and T. Ball. Use of relative code churn measures to predict system defect density. In ICSE, 2005.
33. NIST. The economic impacts of inadequate infrastructure for software testing. Planning Report, May 2002.
34. M. C. Paulk. An Empirical Study of Process Discipline and Software Quality. PhD thesis, Univ. of Pittsburgh, 2005.
35. G. Phipps. Comparing observed bug and productivity rates for java and c++. Software Practice and Experience, 29, April 1999.
36. M Squared Technologies - Resource Standard Metrics. http:// msquaredtechnologies.com/.
37. RSM Metrics. http://msquaredtechnologies. com/m2rsm/docs/index.htm.
38. R. C. Seacord, D. Plakosh, and G. A. Lewis. Modernizing Legacy Systems: Software Technologies, Engineering Process and Business Practices. Addison-Wesley, 2003.
39. J. Śliwerski, T. Zimmermann, and A. Zeller. When do changes induce fixes? In MSR '05, pages 1-5, 2005.
40. TIOBE Software BV. TIOBE Programming Community Index. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html.
41. Trac. http://trac.videolan.org/.
42. VLC Statistics. http://www.videolan.org/stats/downloads.html.
43. B. L. Welch. The generalization of "student's" problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 1947.
44. B. A. Wichmann. Contribution of standard programming languages to software quality. In Software Engineering Journal, pages 3-12, 1994.