Searching for Technical Debt - An Empirical, Exploratory, and Descriptive Case Study

R. Pfeiffer
{"title":"Searching for Technical Debt - An Empirical, Exploratory, and Descriptive Case Study","authors":"R. Pfeiffer","doi":"10.1109/saner53432.2022.00119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commonly, Technical Debt (TD) is used as metaphor to describe “technical compromises that are expedient in the short term, but that create a technical context that increases complexity and cost in the long term” [1]. Since TD is a metaphor, there does not exist a uniform understanding of what concretely such “technical compromises” are. Practitioners, researchers, and tools all subsume and consider widely different concepts as TD. In this paper, we set out to empirically and exploratorily, identify potential “technical compromises” that increase cost and complexity of modifications of two open-source database systems (Apache Cassandra and GCHQ Gaffer). In a manual investigation of 217 commits that are associated to 40 of the most costly and complex issues, we find that refactorings in the sense of Ur-TD [2] are often related to high complexity of modifications and that high cost is due to organization and coordination of work. Other than that, we cannot identify any “technical compromises” that can explain high cost and complexity of the studied contributions.","PeriodicalId":437520,"journal":{"name":"2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/saner53432.2022.00119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Commonly, Technical Debt (TD) is used as metaphor to describe “technical compromises that are expedient in the short term, but that create a technical context that increases complexity and cost in the long term” [1]. Since TD is a metaphor, there does not exist a uniform understanding of what concretely such “technical compromises” are. Practitioners, researchers, and tools all subsume and consider widely different concepts as TD. In this paper, we set out to empirically and exploratorily, identify potential “technical compromises” that increase cost and complexity of modifications of two open-source database systems (Apache Cassandra and GCHQ Gaffer). In a manual investigation of 217 commits that are associated to 40 of the most costly and complex issues, we find that refactorings in the sense of Ur-TD [2] are often related to high complexity of modifications and that high cost is due to organization and coordination of work. Other than that, we cannot identify any “technical compromises” that can explain high cost and complexity of the studied contributions.
搜索技术债务-一个经验的,探索性的,描述性的案例研究
通常,技术债务(Technical Debt, TD)被用作比喻来描述“在短期内是权宜之计的技术妥协,但在长期内会创建一个增加复杂性和成本的技术环境”[1]。由于TD是一种隐喻,对于具体的“技术妥协”是什么并不存在统一的理解。实践者、研究人员和工具都将各种不同的概念纳入并考虑为TD。在本文中,我们从经验和探索性出发,确定潜在的“技术妥协”,这些妥协增加了两个开源数据库系统(Apache Cassandra和GCHQ Gaffer)修改的成本和复杂性。在对217个提交的手工调查中,我们发现Ur-TD b[2]意义上的重构通常与修改的高复杂性有关,而高成本是由于工作的组织和协调。除此之外,我们无法确定任何可以解释所研究贡献的高成本和复杂性的“技术妥协”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信