Is a strategy for code smell assessment long overdue?

S. Counsell, R. Hierons, H. Hamza, S. Black, M. Durrand
{"title":"Is a strategy for code smell assessment long overdue?","authors":"S. Counsell, R. Hierons, H. Hamza, S. Black, M. Durrand","doi":"10.1145/1809223.1809228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Code smells reflect code decay and, as such, developers should seek to eradicate such smells through application of 'deodorant' in the form of one or more refactorings. However, a dearth of studies exploring code smells either theoretically or empirically suggests that there are reasons why smell eradication is neither being applied in anger, nor the subject of significant research. In this paper, we present three studies as supporting evidence for this claim. The first is an analysis of a set of five, open-source Java systems, the second an empirical study of a sub-system of a proprietary, C# web-based application and the third, a theoretical enumeration of smell-related refactorings. Key findings of the study were first, that developers seemed to avoid eradicating superficially 'simple' smells in favor of more 'obscure' ones; second, a wide range of conflicts and anomalies soon emerged when trying to identify smelly code. Finally, perceived effort to eradicate a smell may be a key factor. The study highlights the need for a clearer research strategy on the issue of code smells and all aspects of their identification and measurement.","PeriodicalId":103819,"journal":{"name":"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics","volume":"254 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1809223.1809228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Code smells reflect code decay and, as such, developers should seek to eradicate such smells through application of 'deodorant' in the form of one or more refactorings. However, a dearth of studies exploring code smells either theoretically or empirically suggests that there are reasons why smell eradication is neither being applied in anger, nor the subject of significant research. In this paper, we present three studies as supporting evidence for this claim. The first is an analysis of a set of five, open-source Java systems, the second an empirical study of a sub-system of a proprietary, C# web-based application and the third, a theoretical enumeration of smell-related refactorings. Key findings of the study were first, that developers seemed to avoid eradicating superficially 'simple' smells in favor of more 'obscure' ones; second, a wide range of conflicts and anomalies soon emerged when trying to identify smelly code. Finally, perceived effort to eradicate a smell may be a key factor. The study highlights the need for a clearer research strategy on the issue of code smells and all aspects of their identification and measurement.
代码气味评估策略是不是姗姗姗姗来?
代码气味反映了代码的腐烂,因此,开发人员应该通过一个或多个重构形式的“除臭剂”应用来消除这种气味。然而,缺乏从理论上或经验上探索代码气味的研究表明,气味消除既没有应用于愤怒,也没有成为重要研究的主题,这是有原因的。在本文中,我们提出了三个研究作为支持这一说法的证据。第一部分是对五个开源Java系统的分析,第二部分是对一个专有的基于c#的应用程序的子系统的实证研究,第三部分是对气味相关重构的理论列举。该研究的主要发现是,首先,开发人员似乎避免消除表面上“简单”的气味,而倾向于更“晦涩”的气味;其次,在试图识别有臭味的代码时,很快就会出现大量的冲突和异常。最后,消除气味的感知努力可能是一个关键因素。该研究强调了在代码气味问题及其识别和测量的所有方面需要一个更清晰的研究策略。
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