Comprehension of object-oriented software cohesion: the empirical quagmire

S. Counsell, E. Mendes, S. Swift
{"title":"Comprehension of object-oriented software cohesion: the empirical quagmire","authors":"S. Counsell, E. Mendes, S. Swift","doi":"10.1109/WPC.2002.1021308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chidamber and Kemerer (1991) proposed an object-oriented (OO) metric suite which included the Lack of Cohesion Of Methods (LCOM) metric. Despite considerable effort both theoretically and empirically since then, the software engineering community is still no nearer finding a generally accepted definition or measure of OO cohesion. Yet, achieving highly cohesive software is a cornerstone of software comprehension and hence, maintainability. In this paper, we suggest a number of suppositions as to why a definition has eluded (and we feel will continue to elude) us. We support these suppositions with empirical evidence from three large C++ systems and a cohesion metric based on the parameters of the class methods; we also draw from other related work. Two major conclusions emerge from the study. Firstly, any sensible cohesion metric does at least provide insight into the features of the systems being analysed. Secondly however, and less reassuringly, the deeper the investigative search for a definitive measure of cohesion, the more problematic its understanding becomes; this casts serious doubt on the use of cohesion as a meaningful feature of object-orientation and its viability as a tool for software comprehension.","PeriodicalId":210649,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings 10th International Workshop on Program Comprehension","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings 10th International Workshop on Program Comprehension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/WPC.2002.1021308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Chidamber and Kemerer (1991) proposed an object-oriented (OO) metric suite which included the Lack of Cohesion Of Methods (LCOM) metric. Despite considerable effort both theoretically and empirically since then, the software engineering community is still no nearer finding a generally accepted definition or measure of OO cohesion. Yet, achieving highly cohesive software is a cornerstone of software comprehension and hence, maintainability. In this paper, we suggest a number of suppositions as to why a definition has eluded (and we feel will continue to elude) us. We support these suppositions with empirical evidence from three large C++ systems and a cohesion metric based on the parameters of the class methods; we also draw from other related work. Two major conclusions emerge from the study. Firstly, any sensible cohesion metric does at least provide insight into the features of the systems being analysed. Secondly however, and less reassuringly, the deeper the investigative search for a definitive measure of cohesion, the more problematic its understanding becomes; this casts serious doubt on the use of cohesion as a meaningful feature of object-orientation and its viability as a tool for software comprehension.
面向对象软件内聚的理解:经验泥潭
Chidamber和Kemerer(1991)提出了一个面向对象(OO)的度量套件,其中包括方法内聚不足(LCOM)度量。尽管从那时起在理论上和经验上都做了大量的工作,软件工程社区仍然没有找到一个被普遍接受的OO内聚的定义或度量。然而,实现高度内聚的软件是软件理解的基石,因此也是可维护性的基石。在本文中,我们提出了一些假设,以解释为什么一个定义一直回避(我们觉得将继续回避)我们。我们用来自三个大型c++系统的经验证据和基于类方法参数的内聚度量来支持这些假设;我们也借鉴了其他相关工作。这项研究得出了两个主要结论。首先,任何合理的内聚度量至少提供了对被分析系统特征的洞察。其次,对于内聚性的确定尺度的考察,越深入,对它的理解就越成问题,这一点也就不那么令人放心了。这使人们对使用内聚作为面向对象的一个有意义的特性及其作为软件理解工具的可行性产生了严重的怀疑。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信