1986
DOI: 10.1145/6138.6144
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Metrics for Ada packages: an initial study

Abstract: Many novel features of Ada present programmers with a formidable learning task. The study of four first-time Ada programmers suggests that a background in the software engineering practices supported by Ada is necessary to learn to use the features of the language.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
1

Year Published

1988
1988
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Some of these were: q q q q q q q q q q q q reliance on the predefine numeric types poor definition of numeric types poorly thought out typing in general excessively global type and object deckuations not using constant object declarations for nonstatically valued constants not using type names as discrete ranges, not using the T'RANGE attribute, and not using the in and not in operators not using named parameter and aggregate associations not using boolean assignment statements inappropriate or ineffective attempts to use features such as overloading and generics excessive use clauses use of naming, stylistic, and formatting conventions from other languages, that did not make much sense for Ada imitation of existing pieces of code even when not appropriate A number of these poor language usages were also found in a survey of two million lines of military-reIated applications code Werkins89], so the misuses of Ada itself are probably not peculiar to the small-company environment. The misuses are generally worse than those found in a previous study of experienced programmers in other languages who had been given "typical" Ada formal training [Gannon86].…”
Section: Ziirczncontrasting
confidence: 68%
“…Some of these were: q q q q q q q q q q q q reliance on the predefine numeric types poor definition of numeric types poorly thought out typing in general excessively global type and object deckuations not using constant object declarations for nonstatically valued constants not using type names as discrete ranges, not using the T'RANGE attribute, and not using the in and not in operators not using named parameter and aggregate associations not using boolean assignment statements inappropriate or ineffective attempts to use features such as overloading and generics excessive use clauses use of naming, stylistic, and formatting conventions from other languages, that did not make much sense for Ada imitation of existing pieces of code even when not appropriate A number of these poor language usages were also found in a survey of two million lines of military-reIated applications code Werkins89], so the misuses of Ada itself are probably not peculiar to the small-company environment. The misuses are generally worse than those found in a previous study of experienced programmers in other languages who had been given "typical" Ada formal training [Gannon86].…”
Section: Ziirczncontrasting
confidence: 68%
“…It has been shown that system architecture has an impact on maintainability and fault-proneness [26], [24], [38], [30], [39], [16], [40], [41], [43], [1], [17], [2], [44]. These studies have attempted to capture the design attributes affecting the ease of maintaining and debugging a software system.…”
Section: Define and Validate A Set Of High-level Design Measures To Ementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, if a stack is implemented as an open array, individual components can be read or written, by-passing any Pop or Push operations that might be provided. This category is worse than Common coupling 6…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%