From C to Java: a case study in portability, efficiency, and maintenance

ABSTRACT

The "write once, run anywhere" model for Java-based systems holds great promise for reducing the cost associated with maintaining software systems that must run on multiple hardware platforms and multiple operating systems. The GRASP research project at Auburn University has recently completed a port of its software engineering tool, also called GRASP, from its original implementation in C to Java. This effort has provided an excellent opportunity for the authors to empirically observe the effects on portability, efficiency, and maintainability that such a transformation could have. This case study in reengineering and maintenance suggests that Java has not yet matured to the point that all its potential and promises can be fulfilled. However, as it matures and becomes more stable, Java offers the opportunity to significantly reduce the cost and effort of maintaining multiple host software systems.

REFERENCES

• 1: Belady, L., and Lehman, M. (1972). An Introduction to Growth Dynamics. In W. Freiberger (ed.) Statistical Computer Performance Evaluation. New York: Academic Press.
• 2: Boehm, B., Clark, C., Horowitz, E., Westland, C., Madachy, R., and Selby, R. (1995). Cost Models for Future Life Cycle Processes: COCOMO 2.0. Annals of Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 57--94.
• 3: Taizan Chan , Siu-Leung Chung , Teck Hua Ho, An Economic Model to Estimate Software Rewriting and Replacement Times, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.22 n.8, p.580-598, August 1996 [doi>10.1109/32.536958]
• 4: T. A. Corbi, Program understanding: challenge for the 1990's, IBM Systems Journal, v.28 n.2, p.294-306, 1989
• 5: Cross, J. H., Chang, K. H., Hendrix, T. D., Chapman, R. O., and McQuaid, P. M. (1997). Visualization and Measurement of Source Code. CrossTalk Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 10, 12, pp. 16--19.
• 6: Field, T. (1997) A Good Connection. CIO Magazine, February 1.
• 7: Virginia R. Gibson , James A. Senn, System structure and software maintenance performance, Communications of the ACM, v.32 n.3, p.347-358, March 1989 [doi>10.1145/62065.62073]
• 8: Magne Jørgensen, Experience With the Accuracy of Software Maintenance Task Effort Prediction Models, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.21 n.8, p.674-681, August 1995 [doi>10.1109/32.403791]
• 9: D. Kafura , G. R. Reddy, The use of software complexity metrics in software maintenance, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.13 n.3, p.335-343, March 1987 [doi>10.1109/TSE.1987.233164]
• 10: Bennet P. Lientz , E. Burton Swanson, Problems in application software maintenance, Communications of the ACM, v.24 n.11, p.763-769, Nov. 1981 [doi>10.1145/358790.358796]
• 11: Moller, K. and Paulish, D. (1993). An Empirical Investigation of Software Fault Distribution. In Proceedings of CSR '93, Amsterdam: Chapman and Hall.
• 12: Frank Niessink , H. Van Vliet, Two Case Studies in Measuring Software Maintenance Effort, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, p.76, March 16-19, 1998
• 13: Parikh, G. and Zvegnitzov, N. (1993). Tutorial on Software Maintenance. Los Alamitos, CA, IEEE Computer Society Press.
• 14: Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Software engineering: theory and practice, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998
• 15: Shari Lawrence Pfleeger , Norman Fenton , Stella Page, Evaluating software engineering standards, Computer, v.27 n.9, p.71-79, September 1994 [doi>10.1109/2.312041]
• 16: Janice Singer, Practices of Software Maintenance, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, p.139, March 16-19, 1998
• 17: Jeffrey Voas, Maintaining Component-Based Systems, IEEE Software, v.15 n.4, p.22-27, July 1998 [doi>10.1109/52.687940]
• 18: Norman Wilde , Paul Matthews , Ross Huitt, Maintaining Object-Oriented Software, IEEE Software, v.10 n.1, p.75-80, January 1993 [doi>10.1109/52.207232]