A systematic review of comparative evidence of aspect-oriented programming

Abstract

a b s t r a c tContext: Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) promises to improve many facets of software quality by providing better modularization and separation of concerns, which may have system wide affect. There have been numerous claims in favor and against AOP compared with traditional programming languages such as Objective Oriented and Structured Programming Languages. However, there has been no attempt to systematically review and report the available evidence in the literature to support the claims made in favor or against AOP compared with non-AOP approaches.Objective: This research aimed to systematically identify, analyze, and report the evidence published in the literature to support the claims made in favor or against AOP compared with non-AOP approaches. Method: We performed a systematic literature review of empirical studies of AOP based development, published in major software engineering journals and conference proceedings. Results: Our search strategy identified 3307 papers, of which 22 were identified as reporting empirical studies comparing AOP with non-AOP approaches. Based on the analysis of the data extracted from those 22 papers, our findings show that for performance, code size, modularity, and evolution related characteristics, a majority of the studies reported positive effects, a few studies reported insignificant effects, and no study reported negative effects; however, for cognition and language mechanism, negative effects were reported. Conclusion: AOP is likely to have positive effect on performance, code size, modularity, and evolution. However its effect on cognition and language mechanism is less likely to be positive. Care should be taken using AOP outside the context in which it has been validated.

Execution of UML models: a systematic review of research and practice

“…We decided to follow the strategies already applied in [5,19], and we based our quality assessment strategy on the assessment instrument used in [17]. Specifically, we formulated the quality score of a study according to a set of criteria formulated as questions.…”

“…Specifically, we formulated the quality score of a study according to a set of criteria formulated as questions. Table 4 presents the questions we used for our study, which were inspired by those proposed in [5,19]. Each quality assessment question was answered by assigning a numerical value (1 = "yes", 0 = "no", and 0.5 = "to some extent") [19].…”

“…The various developments grouped under the common heading of Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) 5 were conceived with this goal in mind. At the core of MDE is the notion that models should serve as primary artifacts in software development, as opposed to being merely optional support facilities for analysis and documentation.…”

“…We present the results of this vertical analysis in Sects. 4,5,6,7. Moreover, the complete set of extracted data for each primary study is given in "Appendix C".…”

“…The results of the study are discussed in Sects. 4,5,6,7, and 8. Section 9 focuses on the main findings and implications for future researchers and practitioners working on UML model execution.…”