Two controlled experiments concerning the usefulness of assertions as a means for programming

Matthias M. Müller, R. Typke, Oliver Hagner
{"title":"Two controlled experiments concerning the usefulness of assertions as a means for programming","authors":"Matthias M. Müller, R. Typke, Oliver Hagner","doi":"10.1109/ICSM.2002.1167755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assertions, or more generally \"programming by contract\", have gained widespread acceptance in the computer science community as a means for correct program development. However the literature lacks an empirical evaluation of the benefits a programmer gains by using assertions in his software development. This paper reports two controlled experiments that close this gap. Both experiments compare \"programming by contract\" to the traditional programming style without assertions. The evaluation of the first experiment suggests that assertions decrease the programming effort for the extension of existing software, measured as time needed to finish the task, while the programming effort slightly increases during the development of new code. The second experiment shows that the programming effort tended to be larger with assertions than without. In addition, it shows that the reliability of the written programs slightly increases with the usage of assertions compared to the programs written without assertions.","PeriodicalId":385190,"journal":{"name":"International Conference on Software Maintenance, 2002. Proceedings.","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Conference on Software Maintenance, 2002. Proceedings.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSM.2002.1167755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Assertions, or more generally "programming by contract", have gained widespread acceptance in the computer science community as a means for correct program development. However the literature lacks an empirical evaluation of the benefits a programmer gains by using assertions in his software development. This paper reports two controlled experiments that close this gap. Both experiments compare "programming by contract" to the traditional programming style without assertions. The evaluation of the first experiment suggests that assertions decrease the programming effort for the extension of existing software, measured as time needed to finish the task, while the programming effort slightly increases during the development of new code. The second experiment shows that the programming effort tended to be larger with assertions than without. In addition, it shows that the reliability of the written programs slightly increases with the usage of assertions compared to the programs written without assertions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于断言作为编程手段的有效性的两个对照实验
断言,或者更普遍的“契约式编程”,作为正确程序开发的一种手段,已经在计算机科学界得到了广泛的接受。然而,文献缺乏对程序员在软件开发中使用断言所获得的好处的经验评估。本文报告了两个缩小这一差距的对照实验。两个实验都将“契约式编程”与没有断言的传统编程风格进行了比较。对第一个实验的评估表明,断言减少了现有软件扩展的编程工作量,以完成任务所需的时间来衡量,而在开发新代码期间,编程工作量略有增加。第二个实验表明,使用断言时编程工作量往往比不使用断言时更大。此外,它还表明,与不使用断言的程序相比,使用断言编写的程序的可靠性略有提高。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An algorithm to compare OO-conceptual schemas From legacy to Web through interaction modeling Union slices for program maintenance Putting escape analysis to work for software testing Corrective Maintenance Maturity Model: Problem Management
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1