Is there any difference in novice comprehension of a small program written in the event-driven and object-oriented styles?

Babak Khazaei, M. Jackson
{"title":"Is there any difference in novice comprehension of a small program written in the event-driven and object-oriented styles?","authors":"Babak Khazaei, M. Jackson","doi":"10.1109/HCC.2002.1046336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We report on the conduct and the results of an experiment that investigates the program comprehension differences between event-driven and object-oriented programming styles. A group of novice programmers were asked to comprehend two isomorphic programs and answered a series of five questions on each of the programs. Each question was to address one of five knowledge categories that together formed a complete mental representation of the two programs. Subjects performed badly on recalling the elementary operations knowledge in both styles. They performed very well in the data flow, control flow, function and state knowledge categories for both styles. Subjects were not significantly better in the last four categories indicating that the comprehension of event-driven and object oriented styles have a lot in common. A comparison of these results with the results of earlier studies, which compared procedural and object-oriented styles, indicates that procedural style is furthest away amongst the three styles. The results are discussed in terms of relevance to the theory of program comprehension.","PeriodicalId":298317,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings IEEE 2002 Symposia on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments","volume":"156 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings IEEE 2002 Symposia on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/HCC.2002.1046336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

We report on the conduct and the results of an experiment that investigates the program comprehension differences between event-driven and object-oriented programming styles. A group of novice programmers were asked to comprehend two isomorphic programs and answered a series of five questions on each of the programs. Each question was to address one of five knowledge categories that together formed a complete mental representation of the two programs. Subjects performed badly on recalling the elementary operations knowledge in both styles. They performed very well in the data flow, control flow, function and state knowledge categories for both styles. Subjects were not significantly better in the last four categories indicating that the comprehension of event-driven and object oriented styles have a lot in common. A comparison of these results with the results of earlier studies, which compared procedural and object-oriented styles, indicates that procedural style is furthest away amongst the three styles. The results are discussed in terms of relevance to the theory of program comprehension.
新手对用事件驱动和面向对象风格编写的小程序的理解有什么不同吗?
我们报告了一项实验的行为和结果,该实验调查了事件驱动和面向对象编程风格之间的程序理解差异。一组新手程序员被要求理解两个同构程序,并回答关于每个程序的五个问题。每个问题都要回答五个知识类别中的一个,这五个知识类别共同构成了这两个项目的完整心理表征。两种类型的被试对基本运算知识的记忆均表现不佳。他们在两种风格的数据流、控制流、功能和状态知识类别中都表现得很好。被试在后四个类别中没有明显的提高,这表明对事件驱动和面向对象风格的理解有很多共同之处。将这些结果与早期的研究结果进行比较,其中比较了过程风格和面向对象风格,表明过程风格在三种风格中是最远的。这些结果与程序理解理论的相关性进行了讨论。
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