Comparing observed bug and productivity rates for Java']Java and C++

被引:0
|
作者
Phipps, G [1 ]
机构
[1] Spirus, Paddington, NSW 2021, Australia
来源
SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE | 1999年 / 29卷 / 04期
关键词
C++; !text type='Java']Java[!/text; programming languages; metrics;
D O I
10.1002/(SICI)1097-024X(19990410)29:4<345::AID-SPE238>3.0.CO;2-C
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
An experiment was conducted to compare programmer productivity and defect rates for Java and C++. A modified version of the Personal Software Process (PSP) was used to gather defect rate, bug rate, and productivity data on C++ and Java during two real world development projects. A bug is defined to be a problem detected during testing or deployment. A defect is either a bug, or an error detected during compile time. A typical C++ program had two to three times as many bugs per line of code as a typical Java program. C++ also generated between 15 per cent and 50 per cent more defects per line, and perhaps took six times as long to debug. Java was between 30 per cent and 200 per cent more productive, in terms of lines of code per minute. When defects were measured against development time, Java and C++ showed no difference, but C++ had two to three times as many bugs per hour. Statistics were generated using Student's t-test at a 95 per cent confidence level. Some discussion of why the differences occurred is included, but the reasons offered have not been tested experimentally. The study is limited to one programmer over two projects, so it is not a definitive experimental result. The programmer was experienced in C++, but only learning Java, so the results would probably favour Java more strongly for equally-experienced programmers. The experiment shows that it is possible to experimentally measure the fitness of a programming language. Copyright (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:345 / 358
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A comparison between the Java']Java and C++ implementation of RMPP
    Hendrickx, W
    Stuer, G
    Broeckhove, J
    Dhaene, T
    Dewolfs, D
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE IASTED INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2004, : 511 - 514
  • [22] A comparative evaluation of generic programming in Java']Java and C++
    Saiedian, H
    Hill, S
    SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE, 2003, 33 (02): : 121 - 142
  • [23] 从C++到Java
    王舒
    计算机应用研究, 1997, (03) : 57 - 60
  • [24] JAVA']JAVA AND INTERNET PROGRAMMING - SIMILAR TO C AND C++, BUT MUCH SIMPLER
    VANHOFF, A
    DR DOBBS JOURNAL, 1995, 20 (08): : 56 - &
  • [25] Generic programming for scientific computing in C++, Java']Java™, and C#
    Gerlach, J
    Kneis, J
    ADVANCED PARALLEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES, PROCEEDINGS, 2003, 2834 : 301 - 310
  • [26] Moving from C++ to Java
    Integrated Computer Solutions
    Dr Dobb's J Software Tools Prof Program, 3 (4pp):
  • [27] MoHCA-Java: A tool for C++ to Java conversion support
    Malabarba, Scott
    Devanbu, Premkumar
    Stearns, Aaron
    Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering, 1999, : 650 - 653
  • [28] Java']Java Native Interface idioms for C++ class hierarchies
    Parson, D
    Zhu, ZY
    SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE, 2000, 30 (15): : 1641 - 1660
  • [29] C++ and Java']Java code for recursion formulas in mathematical geodesy
    Hehl, K
    GPS SOLUTIONS, 2005, 9 (01) : 51 - 58
  • [30] Improving productivity in large scale testing at the compiler level by changing the intermediate language from C++ to Java']Java
    Farkas, Izabella Ingrid
    Szabados, Kristof
    Kovacs, Attila
    ACTA UNIVERSITATIS SAPIENTIAE INFORMATICA, 2021, 13 (01) : 134 - 179