Comparison between SLOCs and number of files as size metrics for software evolution analysis

I. Herraiz, G. Robles, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona
{"title":"Comparison between SLOCs and number of files as size metrics for software evolution analysis","authors":"I. Herraiz, G. Robles, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona","doi":"10.1109/CSMR.2006.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are some concerns in the research community about the convenience of using low-level metrics (such as SLOC, source lines of code) for characterizing the evolution of software, instead of the more traditional higher lever metrics (such as the number of modules or files). This issue has been raised in particular after some studies that suggest that libre (free, open source) software evolves differently than 'traditional' software, and therefore it does not conform to Lehman's laws of software evolution. Since those studies on libre software evolution use SLOCs as the base metric, while Lehman's and other traditional studies use modules or files, it is difficult to compare both cases. To overcome this difficulty, and to explore the differences between SLOC and files/modules counts in libre software projects, we have selected a large sample of programs and have calculated both size metrics over time. Our study shows that in those cases the evolution patterns in both cases (counting SLOCs or files) is the same, and that some patterns not conforming to Lehman's laws are indeed apparent","PeriodicalId":443362,"journal":{"name":"Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR'06)","volume":"161 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"73","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR'06)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CSMR.2006.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 73

Abstract

There are some concerns in the research community about the convenience of using low-level metrics (such as SLOC, source lines of code) for characterizing the evolution of software, instead of the more traditional higher lever metrics (such as the number of modules or files). This issue has been raised in particular after some studies that suggest that libre (free, open source) software evolves differently than 'traditional' software, and therefore it does not conform to Lehman's laws of software evolution. Since those studies on libre software evolution use SLOCs as the base metric, while Lehman's and other traditional studies use modules or files, it is difficult to compare both cases. To overcome this difficulty, and to explore the differences between SLOC and files/modules counts in libre software projects, we have selected a large sample of programs and have calculated both size metrics over time. Our study shows that in those cases the evolution patterns in both cases (counting SLOCs or files) is the same, and that some patterns not conforming to Lehman's laws are indeed apparent
将sloc和文件数量作为软件演化分析的大小度量进行比较
在研究社区中有一些关于使用低级指标(例如SLOC,源代码行)来描述软件发展的便利性的关注,而不是使用更传统的高级指标(例如模块或文件的数量)。这个问题在一些研究表明自由(自由、开放源码)软件的发展与“传统”软件不同之后被特别提出,因此它不符合雷曼软件发展定律。由于那些关于自由软件进化的研究使用sloc作为基本度量,而Lehman和其他传统研究使用模块或文件,因此很难比较这两种情况。为了克服这个困难,并探索自由软件项目中SLOC和文件/模块数量之间的差异,我们选择了一个大的程序样本,并随着时间的推移计算了这两个大小指标。我们的研究表明,在这些情况下,两种情况下的演化模式(计算sloc或文件)是相同的,并且一些不符合雷曼定律的模式确实是明显的
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