University of Hertfordshire

From the same journal

By the same authors

Code bad smells: a review of current knowledge

Research output: Contribution to journalBook/Film/Article review

Standard

Code bad smells : a review of current knowledge. / Zhang, M.; Hall, T.; Baddoo, N.

In: Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2011, p. 179-202.

Research output: Contribution to journalBook/Film/Article review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{418e79f09dd54450b6ca2a7fadc3b2e0,
title = "Code bad smells: a review of current knowledge",
abstract = "Fowler et al. identified 22 Code Bad Smells to direct the effective refactoring of code. These are increasingly being taken up by software engineers. However, the empirical basis of using Code Bad Smells to direct refactoring and to address ‘trouble’ in code is not clear, i.e., we do not know whether using Code Bad Smells to target code improvement is effective. This paper aims to identify what is currently known about Code Bad Smells. We have performed a systematic literature review of 319 papers published since Fowler et al. identified Code Bad Smells (2000 to June 2009). We analysed in detail 39 of the most relevant papers. Our findings indicate that Duplicated Code receives most research attention, whereas some Code Bad Smells, e.g., Message Chains, receive little. This suggests that our knowledge of some Code Bad Smells remains insufficient. Our findings also show that very few studies report on the impact of using Code Bad Smells, with most studies instead focused on developing tools and methods to automatically detect Code Bad Smells. This indicates an important gap in the current knowledge of Code Bad Smells. Overall this review suggests that there is little evidence currently available to justify using Code Bad Smells.",
keywords = "systematic literature review, code bad smells, refactoring, empirical software engi-neering",
author = "M. Zhang and T. Hall and N. Baddoo",
note = "The definitive version can be found at : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ Copyright Wiley-Blackwell [Full text of this article is not available in the UHRA]",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1002/smr.521",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "179--202",
journal = "Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution",
issn = "1532-060X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Code bad smells

T2 - a review of current knowledge

AU - Zhang, M.

AU - Hall, T.

AU - Baddoo, N.

N1 - The definitive version can be found at : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ Copyright Wiley-Blackwell [Full text of this article is not available in the UHRA]

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Fowler et al. identified 22 Code Bad Smells to direct the effective refactoring of code. These are increasingly being taken up by software engineers. However, the empirical basis of using Code Bad Smells to direct refactoring and to address ‘trouble’ in code is not clear, i.e., we do not know whether using Code Bad Smells to target code improvement is effective. This paper aims to identify what is currently known about Code Bad Smells. We have performed a systematic literature review of 319 papers published since Fowler et al. identified Code Bad Smells (2000 to June 2009). We analysed in detail 39 of the most relevant papers. Our findings indicate that Duplicated Code receives most research attention, whereas some Code Bad Smells, e.g., Message Chains, receive little. This suggests that our knowledge of some Code Bad Smells remains insufficient. Our findings also show that very few studies report on the impact of using Code Bad Smells, with most studies instead focused on developing tools and methods to automatically detect Code Bad Smells. This indicates an important gap in the current knowledge of Code Bad Smells. Overall this review suggests that there is little evidence currently available to justify using Code Bad Smells.

AB - Fowler et al. identified 22 Code Bad Smells to direct the effective refactoring of code. These are increasingly being taken up by software engineers. However, the empirical basis of using Code Bad Smells to direct refactoring and to address ‘trouble’ in code is not clear, i.e., we do not know whether using Code Bad Smells to target code improvement is effective. This paper aims to identify what is currently known about Code Bad Smells. We have performed a systematic literature review of 319 papers published since Fowler et al. identified Code Bad Smells (2000 to June 2009). We analysed in detail 39 of the most relevant papers. Our findings indicate that Duplicated Code receives most research attention, whereas some Code Bad Smells, e.g., Message Chains, receive little. This suggests that our knowledge of some Code Bad Smells remains insufficient. Our findings also show that very few studies report on the impact of using Code Bad Smells, with most studies instead focused on developing tools and methods to automatically detect Code Bad Smells. This indicates an important gap in the current knowledge of Code Bad Smells. Overall this review suggests that there is little evidence currently available to justify using Code Bad Smells.

KW - systematic literature review

KW - code bad smells

KW - refactoring

KW - empirical software engi-neering

U2 - 10.1002/smr.521

DO - 10.1002/smr.521

M3 - Book/Film/Article review

VL - 23

SP - 179

EP - 202

JO - Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution

JF - Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution

SN - 1532-060X

IS - 3

ER -