skip to main content
research-article

Analysis of reusability of object-oriented systems using object-oriented metrics

Published:12 July 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In object-oriented systems, assessing reusability plays a key role in reducing a cost and improving the quality of the software. Objectoriented programming helps in achieving the concept of reusability through different types of inheritance programs, which further help in developing reusable software modules. And object-oriented metrics identify the effectiveness of each reuse strategy. Software reusability has considerable effect on software quality. Software quality increases as reuse of software components increases. But software quality improvement cannot be understood unless it is measured. This paper focuses on an empirical evaluation of object-oriented metrics in C++ using three different object-oriented features. Three programs have been considered as input for the study -- the first program uses multilevel inheritance, the second program uses multiple inheritance and the third program uses hierarchical inheritance. We have found that multilevel inheritance has more impact on reusability among these three features.

References

  1. Kayarvizhy, N., Kanmani, S. 2011. Analysis of Quality of Object-Oriented Systems using Object-Oriented Metrics, Electronics Computer Technology (ICECT), 2011 3rd International Conference on, April 8-10, 2011. Kanyakumari: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Goel, Brij Mohan, Pradeep, Kumar Bhatia. 2012. Analysis of Reusability of Object-Oriented System using CK Metrics, International Journal of Computer Applications (0975--8887), USA, Vol. 60 -- No.10, pp. 32--36, Dec 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Terry, C., Dikel, D. 1996. Reuse library standards aid users in setting up organizational reuse programs, Embedded Systems Programming Product News.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. G. H. Anthes, Software Reuse Plans Bring Paybacks, Computer world, vol. 27, no. 49, pp.73--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Henderson-sellers, B. 1996. Object-Oriented Metrics, Measures of Complexity, rentice Hall. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Barnard, J. 1998. A New Reusability Metric for Object-Oriented Software, Software Quality Journal, Vol 7 no. 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Aggarwal, K. K., Singh, Y., Kaur, A., Malhotra, R. 2005. Software Reuse Metrics for Object-Oriented Systems, In Proceedings of ACIS Third International conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Aggarwal, K. K., Singh, Y., Kaur, A., Malhotra, R. 2006. Empirical Study of Object-Oriented Metrics, JOURNAL OF OBJECT TECHNOLOGY Vol. 5, no. 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Xenos, M., Stavrinoudis, D., Zikouli, K., Christodoulakis, D. 2000. Object-oriented metrics -- a survey, proceedings of the FESMA 2000, Federation of European Software Measurement Associations, Madrid, Spain.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Abreu, Fernando B. ,Carapuca, Rogerio. 1994. Candidate Metrics for Object-Oriented Software within a Taxonomy Framework, Journal of systems software. Vol. 26, Issue 1, July 1994, Pages 87--96. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0164-1212(94)90099-X. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Li,Wei. , Henry, Salley. 1993. Maintenance Metrics for the Object Oriented Paradigm, First International Software Metrics Symposium. Baltimore,Maryland, May 21-22, 1993. Los Alamitos, California: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Abreu, Fernando B. 1995. The MOOD Metrics Set, Proc. ECOOP'95Workshop on Metrics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lorenz, Mark & Kidd, Jeff 1994. Object-Oriented Software Metrics", Prentice Hall. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Chidamber, S. and Kemerer, C. 1994. A Metrics Suite for Objectoriented Design, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 476--493, June. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Subramanyam, R., Krishnan, M.S. 2003. Empirical analysis of CK metrics for object-oriented design complexity: implications for software defects Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Publication Date: April Volume: 29, Issue: 4 On page(s): 297--310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Chidamber, S. R., Kemerer, C. F. 1994. A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 20 no..6, June, pp. 476--492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Bieman, J., and Karunanithi, S. 1993. Candidate reuse metrics for Object Oriented and Ada Software, In Proceedings of IEEE-CS First International Software Metrics Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Liang,V., and Colemon, C., "Principal Components of Orthogonal Object Oriented Metrics", Software Assurance Technology Center, White Paper SATC-323-08-14, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Analysis of reusability of object-oriented systems using object-oriented metrics

        Recommendations

        Reviews

        Alberto Sampaio

        Despite a large number of studies, more evidence is needed on the validity of existing metrics, to help software engineers choose the right ones for each situation. This paper presents one such empirical study to evaluate a suite of object-oriented (OO) metrics, using OO characteristics such as multilevel inheritance, multiple inheritance, and hierarchical inheritance, to find their impact on reusability. The suite, based on CK metrics [1], was applied to three C++ programs to measure inheritance, coupling, and cohesion. The authors conclude that multilevel inheritance has the largest impact on reusability. They also note, using the word "proves," that the metrics provide a correct evaluation of OO systems. The paper does not show clear evidence relating the metrics suite with its intended use in the study-what they imply for reusability-although the argumentation makes sense. Moreover, the programs are too simple. The authors refer to their own paper [2] when presenting the suite, so the reader is forced to go look it up. The reference is very similar, though with only one study involving a very small C++ program. How can the authors be so confident in their suite, and results, with such weak evidence__?__ Unfortunately, the paper shows to a limited extent the usefulness of the suite, without "proving" it. I was somewhat disappointed with the value of the paper, but I found some of the references useful. I did find an error in the title of section 6, which is common to both papers. Online Computing Reviews Service

        Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

        Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader