What programmers say about refactoring tools?: an empirical investigation of stack overflow

WRT '13 Pub Date : 2013-10-27 DOI:10.1145/2541348.2541357
G. Pinto, F. Kamei
{"title":"What programmers say about refactoring tools?: an empirical investigation of stack overflow","authors":"G. Pinto, F. Kamei","doi":"10.1145/2541348.2541357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Programmers often use forums, such as StackOverflow, to easily and quickly solve their issues. Researchers then investigate those questions to better understand the state-of-use of software engineering techniques. Also, due to the quality and the great number questions and answers, the results found using such method might be difficult, or even impossible, to find using common survey techniques. In this study, we conducted a qualitative and quantitative research in order to categorize questions about refactoring tools. As a result, we presented a comprehensive classification of flaws and desirable features in refactoring tools. We also reported that programmers do not often rely on refactoring tools, but, at the same time, they are desiring number of unimplemented features.","PeriodicalId":131474,"journal":{"name":"WRT '13","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"47","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WRT '13","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2541348.2541357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 47

Abstract

Programmers often use forums, such as StackOverflow, to easily and quickly solve their issues. Researchers then investigate those questions to better understand the state-of-use of software engineering techniques. Also, due to the quality and the great number questions and answers, the results found using such method might be difficult, or even impossible, to find using common survey techniques. In this study, we conducted a qualitative and quantitative research in order to categorize questions about refactoring tools. As a result, we presented a comprehensive classification of flaws and desirable features in refactoring tools. We also reported that programmers do not often rely on refactoring tools, but, at the same time, they are desiring number of unimplemented features.
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
程序员对重构工具有什么看法?堆栈溢出的实证研究
程序员经常使用论坛,比如StackOverflow,来轻松快速地解决他们的问题。然后研究人员调查这些问题,以更好地理解软件工程技术的使用状态。此外,由于质量和大量的问题和答案,使用这种方法发现的结果可能很难,甚至不可能找到使用普通调查技术。在这项研究中,我们进行了定性和定量研究,以便对重构工具的问题进行分类。因此,我们对重构工具中的缺陷和需要的特性进行了全面的分类。我们还报道过,程序员并不经常依赖重构工具,但是,与此同时,他们需要大量未实现的特性。
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
Using refactoring techniques for visual editing of hybrid languages Upgrading fortran source code using automatic refactoring Scalable, example-based refactorings with refaster Befactoring: preserving non-functional properties under behavioural change Towards automated cross-language refactorings between Java and DSLs used by Java frameworks
×
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:481959085
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