FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1566314270> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1566314270 abstract "Code cloning — that is, the gratuitous duplication of source code within a software system — is an endemic problem in large, industrial systems [6, 5]. While there has been much research into techniques for clone detection and analysis, there has been relatively little empirical study on characterizing how, where, and why clones occur in industrial software systems. Our current research is to perform an in-depth analysis of code cloning in real software systems and to build a taxonomy of types of code duplication. Code duplication, or code cloning, is generally believed to be common in software systems [6, 10, 12, 11, 8, 1, 5]. Various problems are associated with code duplication, including increased code size and increased maintenance costs. Other problems associated with code duplication can be found in [6, 12, 8, 1, 5]. While clone detection is an area of active research, and several tools exist to facilitate code clone detection, there has been relatively little empirical research on the types of clones that are found, or where they are found. A code clone pair is a pair of source code segments that are structurally or syntactically similar. One of the segments is usually a copy of the other, perhaps with minor changes. Code cloning occurs when developers create two identical or similar code artifacts inside a software system. For example, developers may copy and paste code. Several methods exist for detecting code clones in software, such as simple string matching [6], using statistical fingerprints of code segments [7], function metrics matching [10, 12, 11], parameterized string matching [1, 8], and program graph comparison [5]. In our current research, we aim to profile the code cloning activity within software systems and generate a taxonomy of types of code duplication. In doing so, we hope to gain more insight into how and why developers duplicate code, in an effort to aid the development of code clone detection techniques and code clone elimination strategies. This taxonomy will consist of the most commonly occurring clones, and the clones with the strongest negative feedback. We plan to use large, industrial size software for our case studies, which will provide us with a better view of code cloning in the real world. It is our position that generating a taxonomy of clones will provide several important contributions to clone detection research. This research will provide information about what kinds of clones are most prominent in software systems and how they are structured. This will give researchers more information on how to develop and tune their clone detection techniques. A taxonomy will provide an informative view of the types of code duplication that exists in software. It will also provide a more informative way of displaying code clones detected within a software system. The taxonomy can be used as a way of evaluating clone detection techniques and provide feedback about where and when to use them. This is important as it is still unclear which clone detection techniques are strongest. In [9] we have begun our initial research into this taxonomy. There we have performed a case study on the Linux kernel file-system subsystem. We categorized different types of cloning activity using attributes such as location and scope after manual inspection of code clones found in the system. Each clone type provides a description of where the clone typically occurs, why it might arise, the problems associated with this type of clone, and possible solutions to the problem. We provide empirical analysis of these categories, and validation of our results using two different clone detection techniques. In future research we will try to incorporate more clone detection techniques, as this will ensure larger coverage of the code clones within a software system. Other work tries to categorize clones for the purpose of software maintenance. In [2], Balazinska et al. create a schema for classifying various cloned methods based on the differences between the two functions which are cloned. The results produced in [2] are used by Balazinska et al. in [4, 3] to produce software aided re engineering systems for code clone elimination. This differs from our work in that our classification scheme is based on locality as well as clone type, and copied functions are only one type in our case, although in [2] they break this down into 18 categories. One of our main research goals is to determine how much developers clone and from where. This question is not answered by the clone classification scheme in [2]. In addition, the work in [2] ignores code clones which are not function clones. It is our position that this is an important step in understanding the phenomenon of code cloning and it will provide critical information to be used in enhancing and building clone detection software. Through case studies and further improving our taxonomy, we will gain valuable information such as what types of clones provide the largest refactoring gains, what types of clones are the most common, what clones are the most deadly, and how software requirements and design goals affect the practice of clone duplication. This information will help us evaluate current clone detection techniques, and current code clone display and elimination methods. It will also help guide us in uncovering problems in clone duplication research which need more work. In the short term our research goals are to expand our case study to other subsystems in the Linux kernel, more specifically the driver subsystems, and to further expand and refine our taxonomy. Points of refinement are sub-classing clone types such as blocks within the same function. Our long term goals are to use the taxonomy to study the evolution of code clones in a software system. For example, we suspect that many code block clones that occur across subsystems begin as full function clones. We would like to test this hypothesis by comparing clone detection results from multiple versions of a software system. We also plan to study how the taxonomy can be used to improve the presentation of detected clones to software maintainers." @default.
• W1566314270 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1566314270 creator A5011927568 @default.
• W1566314270 creator A5037111360 @default.
• W1566314270 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W1566314270 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1566314270 title "A Taxonomy of Clones in Source Code: The Re–Engineers Most Wanted List" @default.
• W1566314270 cites W1698439592 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W1777576722 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W1885561873 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W1964795700 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W205081760 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W2118024368 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W2128698639 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W2138756793 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W2146483864 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W2157532207 @default.
• W1566314270 cites W2157663777 @default.
• W1566314270 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W1566314270 type Work @default.
• W1566314270 sameAs 1566314270 @default.
• W1566314270 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W1566314270 countsByYear W15663142702012 @default.
• W1566314270 countsByYear W15663142702013 @default.
• W1566314270 countsByYear W15663142702014 @default.
• W1566314270 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1566314270 hasAuthorship W1566314270A5011927568 @default.
• W1566314270 hasAuthorship W1566314270A5037111360 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConcept C58642233 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConceptScore W1566314270C136764020 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConceptScore W1566314270C18903297 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConceptScore W1566314270C41008148 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConceptScore W1566314270C58642233 @default.
• W1566314270 hasConceptScore W1566314270C86803240 @default.
• W1566314270 hasLocation W15663142701 @default.
• W1566314270 hasOpenAccess W1566314270 @default.
• W1566314270 hasPrimaryLocation W15663142701 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W125217267 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W1508516840 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W1512285202 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W1593203335 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W1698439592 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W1777576722 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W1857184435 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W1885561873 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W1964795700 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W205081760 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2074529754 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2096491586 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2101251407 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2101832700 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2109943392 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2128698639 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2128888088 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2138756793 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2157532207 @default.
• W1566314270 hasRelatedWork W2298313545 @default.
• W1566314270 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1566314270 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1566314270 magId "1566314270" @default.
• W1566314270 workType "article" @default.