A study of errors, error-proneness, and error diagnosis in Cobol

ABSTRACT

This paper provides data on Cobol error frequency for correction of errors in student-oriented compilers, improvement of teaching, and changes in programming language. Cobol was studied because of economic importance, widespread usage, possible error-inducing design, and lack of research. The types of errors were identified in a pilot study; then, using the 132 error types found, 1,777 errors were classified in 1,400 runs of 73 Cobol students. Error density was high: 20 percent of the types contained 80 percent of the total frequency, which implies high potential effectiveness for software-based correction of Cobol. Surprisingly, only four high-frequency errors were error-prone, which implies minimal error inducing design. 80 percent of Cobol misspellings were classifiable in the four error categories of previous researchers, which implies that Cobol misspellings are correctable by existent algorithms. Reserved word usage was not error-prone, which implies minimal interference with usage of reserved words. Over 80 percent of error diagnosis was found to be inaccurate. Such feedback is not optimal for users, particularly for the learning user of Cobol.

REFERENCES

• 1: Boehm, B.W. Software and its impact: a quantitative assessment. Datamation 19, 5 (May, 1973), 48-59.
• 2: Control Data Corporation. COBOL Reference Manual: 6000 Version 3. Control Data Corporation, Minneapolis, 1973.
• 3: DeGreen, K.B. In Systems Psychology, K.B. DeGreen (Ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970, pp. 79--130, 281-336.
• 4: Diebold, J. Bad decisions on computer use. Harvard Business Review 47, 1 (1969), 14-176.
• 5: Freeman, D.N. Error correction in CORC: the Cornell University computing language. Ph.D. Th. dissertation, Cornell U., 1963. Available from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich.
• 6: David Gries, Compiler Construction for Digital Computers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1971
• 7: Knuth, D.E. An empirical study of FORTRAN programs. Software--Practice and Experience, 1 (1971), 105-133.
• 8: Charles Roger Litecky, A study of errors, error-proneness, and error diagnosis of programming languages with special reference to cobol., 1974
• 9: Howard L. Morgan, Spelling correction in systems programs, Communications of the ACM, v.13 n.2, p.90-94, Feb 1970 [doi>10.1145/362007.362033]
• 10: Morgan, H.L., and Wagner, R.A. PL/C--The design of a high performance compiler for PL/1. AFIPS Conf. Proc., Vol. 38, 1971 SJCC, AFIPS Press, Montvale, N.J. 1971, pp. 503-510.
• 11: P. G. Moulton , M. E. Muller, DITRAN—a compiler emphasizing diagnostics, Communications of the ACM, v.10 n.1, p.45-52, Jan. 1967 [doi>10.1145/363018.363060]
• 12: Nelson, D.A. COBOL: Some limitations on the implementor and the user. In CODASYL Symposium on COBOL Compiler Techniques, Philadelphia, Pa, May 22, 1972, pp. 1-35.
• 13: Philippakis, A.S. Programming language usage. Datamation 19, 10 (Oct. 1973), 109-114.
• 14: Schlaifer, R. Probability and Statistics for Business Decisions. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.
• 15: Edward Arthur Youngs, Error-proneness in programming, 1970
• 16: G. M. Weinberg, The psychology of computer programming, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY, 1988

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
Cobol, diagnostics, error analysis, error correction, error frequency, error-proneness, errors in programming, learning of programming, programming language errors, spelling errors, syntactic errors, teaching of programming