Clones: what is that smell?
Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance co...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Rahman, Foyzur [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2011 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Empirical software engineering - Springer US, 1996, 17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:17 ; year:2011 ; number:4-5 ; day:24 ; month:12 ; pages:503-530 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC207166101X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC207166101X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503052513.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2011 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC207166101X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10664-011-9195-3-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 004 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Rahman, Foyzur |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Clones: what is that smell? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2011 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Empirical software engineering | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Software maintenance | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Software clone | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Software quality | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Software evolution | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bird, Christian |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Devanbu, Premkumar |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Empirical software engineering |d Springer US, 1996 |g 17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530 |w (DE-627)235946516 |w (DE-600)1401304-6 |w (DE-576)102432406 |x 1382-3256 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:17 |g year:2011 |g number:4-5 |g day:24 |g month:12 |g pages:503-530 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-MAT | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 17 |j 2011 |e 4-5 |b 24 |c 12 |h 503-530 | ||
| author_variant |
f r fr c b cb p d pd |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:13823256:2011----::lnshtsh |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2011 |
| publishDate |
2011 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 doi (DE-627)OLC207166101X (DE-He213)s10664-011-9195-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Rahman, Foyzur verfasserin aut Clones: what is that smell? 2011 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. Empirical software engineering Software maintenance Software clone Software quality Software evolution Bird, Christian aut Devanbu, Premkumar aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530 (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:17 year:2011 number:4-5 day:24 month:12 pages:503-530 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT GBV_ILN_70 AR 17 2011 4-5 24 12 503-530 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 doi (DE-627)OLC207166101X (DE-He213)s10664-011-9195-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Rahman, Foyzur verfasserin aut Clones: what is that smell? 2011 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. Empirical software engineering Software maintenance Software clone Software quality Software evolution Bird, Christian aut Devanbu, Premkumar aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530 (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:17 year:2011 number:4-5 day:24 month:12 pages:503-530 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT GBV_ILN_70 AR 17 2011 4-5 24 12 503-530 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 doi (DE-627)OLC207166101X (DE-He213)s10664-011-9195-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Rahman, Foyzur verfasserin aut Clones: what is that smell? 2011 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. Empirical software engineering Software maintenance Software clone Software quality Software evolution Bird, Christian aut Devanbu, Premkumar aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530 (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:17 year:2011 number:4-5 day:24 month:12 pages:503-530 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT GBV_ILN_70 AR 17 2011 4-5 24 12 503-530 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 doi (DE-627)OLC207166101X (DE-He213)s10664-011-9195-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Rahman, Foyzur verfasserin aut Clones: what is that smell? 2011 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. Empirical software engineering Software maintenance Software clone Software quality Software evolution Bird, Christian aut Devanbu, Premkumar aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530 (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:17 year:2011 number:4-5 day:24 month:12 pages:503-530 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT GBV_ILN_70 AR 17 2011 4-5 24 12 503-530 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 doi (DE-627)OLC207166101X (DE-He213)s10664-011-9195-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Rahman, Foyzur verfasserin aut Clones: what is that smell? 2011 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. Empirical software engineering Software maintenance Software clone Software quality Software evolution Bird, Christian aut Devanbu, Premkumar aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530 (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:17 year:2011 number:4-5 day:24 month:12 pages:503-530 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT GBV_ILN_70 AR 17 2011 4-5 24 12 503-530 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Empirical software engineering 17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530 volume:17 year:2011 number:4-5 day:24 month:12 pages:503-530 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Empirical software engineering 17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530 volume:17 year:2011 number:4-5 day:24 month:12 pages:503-530 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Empirical software engineering Software maintenance Software clone Software quality Software evolution |
| dewey-raw |
004 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Empirical software engineering |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Rahman, Foyzur @@aut@@ Bird, Christian @@aut@@ Devanbu, Premkumar @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2011-12-24T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
235946516 |
| dewey-sort |
14 |
| id |
OLC207166101X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC207166101X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503052513.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2011 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC207166101X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10664-011-9195-3-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rahman, Foyzur</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Clones: what is that smell?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Empirical software engineering</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Software maintenance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Software clone</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Software quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Software evolution</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bird, Christian</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Devanbu, Premkumar</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Empirical software engineering</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)235946516</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1401304-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)102432406</subfield><subfield code="x">1382-3256</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2011</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4-5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:24</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:503-530</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-MAT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2011</subfield><subfield code="e">4-5</subfield><subfield code="b">24</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield><subfield code="h">503-530</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Rahman, Foyzur |
| spellingShingle |
Rahman, Foyzur ddc 004 misc Empirical software engineering misc Software maintenance misc Software clone misc Software quality misc Software evolution Clones: what is that smell? |
| authorStr |
Rahman, Foyzur |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)235946516 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
004 - Data processing & computer science |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1382-3256 |
| topic_title |
004 VZ Clones: what is that smell? Empirical software engineering Software maintenance Software clone Software quality Software evolution |
| topic |
ddc 004 misc Empirical software engineering misc Software maintenance misc Software clone misc Software quality misc Software evolution |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 004 misc Empirical software engineering misc Software maintenance misc Software clone misc Software quality misc Software evolution |
| topic_browse |
ddc 004 misc Empirical software engineering misc Software maintenance misc Software clone misc Software quality misc Software evolution |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Empirical software engineering |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
235946516 |
| dewey-tens |
000 - Computer science, knowledge & systems |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Empirical software engineering |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 |
| title |
Clones: what is that smell? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC207166101X (DE-He213)s10664-011-9195-3-p |
| title_full |
Clones: what is that smell? |
| author_sort |
Rahman, Foyzur |
| journal |
Empirical software engineering |
| journalStr |
Empirical software engineering |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
000 - Computer science, information & general works |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2011 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
503 |
| author_browse |
Rahman, Foyzur Bird, Christian Devanbu, Premkumar |
| container_volume |
17 |
| class |
004 VZ |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Rahman, Foyzur |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 |
| dewey-full |
004 |
| title_sort |
clones: what is that smell? |
| title_auth |
Clones: what is that smell? |
| abstract |
Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT GBV_ILN_70 |
| container_issue |
4-5 |
| title_short |
Clones: what is that smell? |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Bird, Christian Devanbu, Premkumar |
| author2Str |
Bird, Christian Devanbu, Premkumar |
| ppnlink |
235946516 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T03:56:39.029Z |
| _version_ |
1803619295853281280 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC207166101X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503052513.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2011 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC207166101X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10664-011-9195-3-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rahman, Foyzur</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Clones: what is that smell?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell (Fowler et al. 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a “bad smell” (Fowler et al. 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Empirical software engineering</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Software maintenance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Software clone</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Software quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Software evolution</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bird, Christian</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Devanbu, Premkumar</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Empirical software engineering</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2011), 4-5 vom: 24. Dez., Seite 503-530</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)235946516</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1401304-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)102432406</subfield><subfield code="x">1382-3256</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2011</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4-5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:24</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:503-530</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9195-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-MAT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2011</subfield><subfield code="e">4-5</subfield><subfield code="b">24</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield><subfield code="h">503-530</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.401101 |