A measurement based comparative evaluation of effectiveness of object-oriented versus conventional procedural programming techniques and languages

Aftab Ahmad, M. Talha
{"title":"A measurement based comparative evaluation of effectiveness of object-oriented versus conventional procedural programming techniques and languages","authors":"Aftab Ahmad, M. Talha","doi":"10.1109/APSEC.2002.1183072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many assumptions have been made about positive effects of the object-oriented paradigm on software quality. It has been also widely assumed that the object-oriented programming technique is more powerful than the conventional procedural programming technique and object-based languages provide abstraction far better than procedural languages. However, in reality little or no empirical evidence has been given to support these assumptions. Therefore, there is a desperate need for a quantitative-based comparative evaluation of merits of object-oriented versus conventional procedural program design methods and languages. This paper reports on a pioneer work in this direction. The paper describes the results of the application of well-established software metrics on data-collection through controlled experimentation, where forty subjects developed program samples in Java and C languages for the solution of the same set of problems via object-oriented and procedural structured program design methods respectively. Three important aspects of program quality known as program difficulty, effort to comprehend implementation of the algorithm and level of languages have been measured from Java and C programs using well established and recognized software science metrics.","PeriodicalId":132364,"journal":{"name":"Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, 2002.","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, 2002.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2002.1183072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Many assumptions have been made about positive effects of the object-oriented paradigm on software quality. It has been also widely assumed that the object-oriented programming technique is more powerful than the conventional procedural programming technique and object-based languages provide abstraction far better than procedural languages. However, in reality little or no empirical evidence has been given to support these assumptions. Therefore, there is a desperate need for a quantitative-based comparative evaluation of merits of object-oriented versus conventional procedural program design methods and languages. This paper reports on a pioneer work in this direction. The paper describes the results of the application of well-established software metrics on data-collection through controlled experimentation, where forty subjects developed program samples in Java and C languages for the solution of the same set of problems via object-oriented and procedural structured program design methods respectively. Three important aspects of program quality known as program difficulty, effort to comprehend implementation of the algorithm and level of languages have been measured from Java and C programs using well established and recognized software science metrics.
基于对面向对象与传统过程编程技术和语言的有效性的比较评估的度量
关于面向对象范式对软件质量的积极影响,已经做出了许多假设。人们还普遍认为,面向对象编程技术比传统的过程式编程技术更强大,而基于对象的语言提供的抽象能力远远好于过程式语言。然而,实际上很少或根本没有经验证据支持这些假设。因此,迫切需要对面向对象与传统过程程序设计方法和语言的优点进行基于定量的比较评估。本文报道了这一方向的先驱工作。本文描述了通过控制实验将成熟的软件度量应用于数据收集的结果,其中40名受试者分别通过面向对象和过程结构化程序设计方法,用Java和C语言开发了解决同一组问题的程序样本。程序质量的三个重要方面,即程序难度、理解算法实现的努力和语言水平,已经从Java和C程序中使用良好建立和公认的软件科学度量来衡量。
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