As Java 8 introduced functional interfaces and lambda expressions to the Java programming language, the JDK API was changed to introduce support for lambda expressions, thus allowing consumers to define lambda functions when using Java’s collections. While the JDK API allows for a functional paradigm, for API consumers to be able to completely embrace Java’s new functional features, third-party APIs must also support lambda expressions. To understand the current state of the Java ecosystem, we investigate (i) the extent to which third-party Java APIs have changed their interfaces, (ii) why or why not they introduce functional interface support and (iii) in the case the API has changed its interface how it does so. We also investigate the consumers’ perspective, particularly their ease in using lambda expressions in Java with APIs. We perform our investigation by manually analyzing the top 50 popular Java APIs, conducting in-person and email interviews with 23 API producers, and surveying 110 developers. We find that only a minority of the top 50 APIs support functional interfaces, the rest does not support them, predominantly in the interest of backward compatibility. Java 7 support is still greatly desirable due to enterprise projects not migrating to newer versions of Java. This suggests that the Java ecosystem is stagnant and that the introduction of new language features will not be enough to save it from the advent of new languages such as Kotlin (JVM based) and Rust (non-JVM based).

Code review is a software engineering practice in which reviewers manually inspect the code written by a fellow developer and propose any change that is deemed necessary or useful. The main goal of code review is to improve the quality of the code under review. Despite the widespread use of code review, only a few studies focused on the investigation of its outcomes, for example, investigating the code changes that happen to the code under review. The goal of this paper is to expand our knowledge on the outcome of code review while re-evaluating results from previous work. To this aim, we analyze changes that happened during the review process, which we define as review changes. Considering three popular open-source software projects, we investigate the types of review changes (based on existing taxonomies) and what triggers them; also, we study which code factors in a code review are most related to the number of review changes. Our results show that the majority of changes relate to evolvability concerns, with a strong prevalence of documentation and structure changes at type-level. Furthermore, differently from past work, we found that the majority of review changes are not triggered by reviewers’ comments. Finally, we find that the number of review changes in a code review is related to the size of the initial patch as well as the new lines of code that it adds. However, other factors, such as lines deleted or the author of the review patchset, do not always show an empirically supported relationship with the number of changes.

Code reviewing is a widespread practice used by software engineers to maintain high code quality. To date, the knowledge on the effect of code review on source code is still limited. Some studies have addressed this problem by classifying the types of changes that take place during the review process (a.k.a. review changes), as this strategy can, for example, pinpoint the immediate effect of reviews on code. Nevertheless, this classification (1) is not scalable, as it was conducted manually, and (2) was not assessed in terms of how meaningful the provided information is for practitioners. This paper aims at addressing these limitations: First, we investigate to what extent a machine learning-based technique can automatically classify review changes. Then, we evaluate the relevance of information on review change types and its potential usefulness, by conducting (1) semi-structured interviews with 12 developers and (2) a qualitative study with 17 developers, who are asked to assess reports on the review changes of their project. Key results of the study show that not only it is possible to automatically classify code review changes, but this information is also perceived by practitioners as valuable to improve the code review process. Data and materials: 10.5281/zenodo.5592254

No abstract