Code Quality Issues in Student Programs

Keuning, Hieke; Heeren, Bastiaan; Jeuring, Johan

doi:10.1145/3059009.3059061

Cited by 85 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Modularization and decomposition can be caused. If students investigate these faults, timely then can use tools to solve the problem [40].…”

Section: Design Patterns and Quality Assurancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clear and refactored with clear quality programs are obtained [40] Ana Rodriguez (2017) Mobile rely on batteries and APPS use much battery…”

Section: Functions Clearity Expressions Finding Demoularizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vol. 7 N. 3 (2018), [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] performance of system architecture failed to work out. We try to move with technology advancements and available hardware [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An empirical approach for software reengineering process with relation to quality assurance mechanism

Muzammul

Awais²

2018

ADCAIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Muhammad Muzammul and Dr. M. AwaisAn empirical approach for software reengineering process with relation to quality assurance mechanism ADCAIJSoftware development advances focus on productivity of existing software systems and quality is basic demand of every engineering product. In this paper we will discuss complete reengineering process with aspects of forward, reverse and quality assurance mechanism. As we know the software development life cycle (SDLC) follows a complete mechanism of engineering process. In forward engineering we tried to follow selective main phases of software engineering (data,requirements,design,development,implementation). Inreverse engineering we move backward from the last phase of developing product as it gather requirements from implemented product (implementation, coding, design,requirements,data).During reengineering we add up more quality features on customer demands, but the actual demand is to fulfill quality needs that can be assured by external as well as internal quality attributes such as reliability, efficiency, flexibility, reusability and robustness in any software system. We discussed a methodological approach to move from reengineering to the journey of quality assurance. More than 50 studies come into discussion and throughput results proposed by graph and tabular form. We can say if the reengineering process produce quality attributes, then it can be said by old software system refactoring as code refactoring, data refactoring and architectural refactoring we obtained a quality products at lower cost instead of new software system development, which causes decrease in quality attributes as cost, time etc. In future work testing methodology can be proposed for quality assurance.Muhammad Muzammul and Dr. M. Awais An empirical approach for software reengineering process with relation to quality assurance mechanism ADCAIJAn empirical approach for software reengineering process with relation to quality assurance mechanism ADCAIJ

show abstract

“…Modularization and decomposition can be caused. If students investigate these faults, timely then can use tools to solve the problem [40].…”

Section: Design Patterns and Quality Assurancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clear and refactored with clear quality programs are obtained [40] Ana Rodriguez (2017) Mobile rely on batteries and APPS use much battery…”

Section: Functions Clearity Expressions Finding Demoularizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An empirical approach for software reengineering process with relation to quality assurance mechanism

Muzammul

Awais²

2018

ADCAIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some educators use static analysis tools such as Checkstyle 1 or FindBugs 2 to support the assessment of programming assignments. For example, Keuning et al [18] recently showed that many student programs in the (huge) Blackbox database contain quality issues as reported by PMD 3 , and that students hardly ever fix an issue, even when they make use of analysis tools. These tools check a large range of potential quality issues, but it is not clear which of these tools are suitable or even appropriate in an educational context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

"I know it when I see it" Perceptions of Code Quality

Börstler

Störrle²,

Toll

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE Conference on Working Group Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Code quality is a key issue in software development. The ability to develop high quality software is therefore a key learning goal of computing programs. However, there are no universally accepted measures to assess the quality of code and current standards are considered weak. Furthermore, there are many facets to code quality. Defining and explaining the concept of code quality is therefore a challenge faced by many educators. Objectives. In this working group, we investigated code quality as perceived by students, educators, and professional developers, in particular, the differences in their views of code quality and which quality aspects they consider as more or less important. Furthermore, we investigated their sources for information about code quality and its assessment. Methods. We interviewed 34 students, educators and professional developers regarding their perceptions of code quality. For the interviews they brought along code from their own experience to discuss and exemplify code quality.Results. There was no common definition of code quality among * Working group co-leaders:

show abstract

“…Some educators use static analysis tools such as Checkstyle 1 or FindBugs 2 to support the assessment of programming assignments. For example, Keuning et al [18] recently showed that many student programs in the (huge) Blackbox database contain quality issues as reported by PMD 3 , and that students hardly ever x an issue, even when they make use of analysis tools. These tools check a large range of potential quality issues, but it is not clear which of these tools are suitable or even appropriate in an educational context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

"I know it when I see it"

Börstler

Störrle²,

Toll

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Code quality is a key issue in software development. The ability to develop high quality software is therefore a key learning goal of computing programs. However, there are no universally accepted measures to assess the quality of code and current standards are considered weak. Furthermore, there are many facets to code quality. De ning and explaining the concept of code quality is therefore a challenge faced by many educators. Objectives. In this working group, we investigated code quality as perceived by students, educators, and professional developers, in particular, the di erences in their views of code quality and which quality aspects they consider as more or less important. Furthermore, we investigated their sources for information about code quality and its assessment. Methods. We interviewed 34 students, educators and professional developers regarding their perceptions of code quality. For the interviews they brought along code from their own experience to discuss and exemplify code quality.

show abstract

Code Quality Issues in Student Programs

Cited by 85 publications

References 14 publications

An empirical approach for software reengineering process with relation to quality assurance mechanism

An empirical approach for software reengineering process with relation to quality assurance mechanism

"I know it when I see it" Perceptions of Code Quality

"I know it when I see it"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About