ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
The impact of static-dynamic coupling on remodularization
Full text PdfPdf (339 KB)
Source
Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications archive
Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming systems languages and applications table of contents
Nashville, TN, USA
SESSION: Refactoring table of contents
Pages 261-276  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-215-3
Also published in ...
Authors
Rick Chern  The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Kris De Volder  The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Sponsors
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 19,   Downloads (12 Months): 162,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1449764.1449786
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We explore the concept of static-dynamic coupling--the degree to which changes in a program's static modular structure imply changes to its dynamic structure. This paper investigates the impact of static-dynamic coupling in a programming language on the effort required to evolve the coarse modular structure of programs written in that language. We performed a series of remodularization case studies in both Java and SubjectJ. SubjectJ is designed to be similar to Java, but have strictly less static-dynamic coupling. Our results include quantitative measures-time taken and number of bugs introduced--as well as a more subjective qualitative analysis of the remodularization process. All results point in the same direction and suggest that static-dynamic coupling causes substantial accidental complexity for the remodularization of Java programs.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
 
3
 
4
Eduardo Casais. Automatic reorganization of object-oriented hierarchies: A case study. Object-Oriented Systems, 1(2):95--115, December 1994.
 
5
 
6
Rick Chern. Reducing remodularization complexity through modular-objective decoupling (in progress). Master's thesis, The University of British Columbia, 2008.
7
 
8
Linda G. Demichiel. Overview: The Common Lisp Object System. Lisp and Symbolic Computation, 1(2):227--244, September 1988.
 
9
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
14
15
16
17
 
18
William H. Harrison, Harold Ossher, and Peri L. Tarr. General composition of software artifacts. In Welf Lowe and Mario Sudholt, editors, Software Composition, volume 4089 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 194--210. Springer, 2006.
 
19
 
20
21
 
22
Kabir Khan, Bill Burke, Flavia Rainone, Staale Pedersen, Marc Fleury, Adrian Brock, Claude Hussenet, and Marshall Culpepper. JBoss AOP. http://labs.jboss.com/jbossaop/.
 
23
 
24
25
26
27
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
P. Tarr and H. Ossher. Hyper/J user and installation manual. Technical report, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, 2000.
32
 
33
Frank Tip. Refactoring using type constraints. In Hanne Riis Nielson and Gilberto File, editors, SAS, volume 4634 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1--17. Springer, 2007.
 
34
 
35
Mark Weiser. Program slicing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-10(4):352--357, July 1984.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Rick Chern: colleagues
Kris De Volder: colleagues