Software measure specification

Gustafson, David A.; Tan, Joo; Weaver, Perla

doi:10.1145/167049.167075

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We first define intuitive relations and derive measures in terms of those relations. This approach is consistent with the model-order-mapping paradigm for specifying software measures (Gustafson, Tan and Weaver, 1993). Stevens, Myers, and Constantine (1974) defined software cohesion ('SMC cohesion') as a property that can be used to help determine if the components of a module actually belong together.…”

Section: Measuring Design Cohesionmentioning

confidence: 80%

A quantitative framework for software restructuring

Kang

Bieman

1999

J. Softw. Maint: Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many existing software systems can benefit from restructuring to reduce maintenance cost and improve reusability. Yet, intuition‐based, ad hoc restructuring can be difficult and expensive, and can even make software structure worse. We introduce a quantitative framework for software restructuring. In the framework, restructuring decisions are guided by visualized design information and objective criteria. The design information can be extracted directly from code to restructure existing or legacy software. Criteria for comparing alternative design structures include measures of design‐level cohesion and coupling. Restructuring is accomplished through a series of decomposition and composition operations which increase the cohesion and/or decrease the coupling of individual system components. An example and a case study demonstrate the framework. The framework ensures that restructuring results in measurable improvements in design quality. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Measuring Design Cohesionmentioning

confidence: 80%

A quantitative framework for software restructuring

Kang

Bieman

1999

J. Softw. Maint: Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore object-oriented metrics does not suit Z specifications, too [1,2,[4][5][6]18,[20][21][22]. Metrics for formal specifications At the same time, there is limited metrics for formal specifications [7][8][9][11][12][13]16,19].…”

Section: Metrics For Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Z specifications

Tong

2004

SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software metrics are useful quantitative indicators to assess and predict software quality attributes; a commonly measured attribute is software complexity. The main drawbacks are: they can only be calculated after a major development effort has been committed to produce the source codes; they cannot provide early feedback during the specification phase; and subsequently it is expensive to make changes to the system, if so indicated by the metrics. To date, there is hardly any work done on measuring the complexity of a system early in its specification phase. In this paper, we describe how the complexity of a Z specification can be measured. We also found that there is a significant correlation between the specification metrics proposed and the widely adopted OO metrics, thus demonstrating that our proposed metrics are a reliable means of measuring the system early in the specification phase.

show abstract

A quantitative framework for software restructuring

Kang

Bieman

1999

J. Softw. Maint: Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software measure specification

Cited by 9 publications

References 14 publications

A quantitative framework for software restructuring

A quantitative framework for software restructuring

Measuring Z specifications

A quantitative framework for software restructuring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About