Process for measuring coding productivity

Details Process for measuring coding productivity Process for measuring coding productivity

2006-08-15

2006-08-15

Dam, Tuan (Department: 2192)

Data processing: software development, installation, and managem

Software program development tool

Testing or debugging

C717S126000

Reexamination Certificate

active

07093235

ABSTRACT:
A novel system and method provides a concrete relative measure for evaluating coding quality. The novel system and method do not rely on bug counting. Instead, the number of defective lines of code is compared to a total number of opportunities to create such defects. A defective line is a line that is deleted, added or changed subsequent to drafting of the prior version of the code. In an embodiment, a deletion and an addition are each treated as single defects, while modification of a line of code is treated as two defects. In this way, regardless of whether modification is viewed as deletion followed by addition, or rather simply a single step of modification, the number of defects in either case is the same.

REFERENCES:
patent: 5293629 (1994-03-01), Conley et al.
patent: 6275223 (2001-08-01), Hughes
patent: 6609216 (2003-08-01), Almy et al.
patent: 6836884 (2004-12-01), Evans et al.
patent: 2002/0023257 (2002-02-01), Charisius et al.
patent: 2002/0066077 (2002-05-01), Leung
Watt S. Humphrey, The Personal Software Process, CMU/SEI-2000-TR-022, [retrieved on Oct. 4, 2005], Carnegie Mellon university, retrieved from the internet <URL:http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/00.reports/pdf/00tr022.pdf, pp. 1-55.
Thomas Ball, Stephen G.Eick, Software Visualization in the Large [online], Apr. 1996, [retrieved on Oct. 8, 2005], IEEE, vol. 29 No. 4, retrieved from the internet: <URL: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/2.488299, pp. 33-43.
Stepehn J Webster, Changed, Added and Deleted SLOC: A Simple Example [online], Aug. 3, 2001, [retrieved on Oct. 6, 2005], Power Software, retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.powersoftware.com/pm/pm—chg—ex.pdf, pp. 1-5.
Wohlin, C., et al., “Defect Content Estimations from Review Data”,in Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 400-409, (Apr. 19-25, 1998) Kyoto, Japan.
Petersson, H, et al., “An Empirical Study of Experience-Based Software Defect Content Estimation Methods,In Proceedings of 10thInternational Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering”, pp. 126-135, (Nov. 1-4, 1999) Boca Raton, Florida.
Wohlin, C. et al., “Defect Content Estimation for Two Reviewers”,In Proceedings of 12thInternational Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 340-345, (Nov. 2001) Hong Kong, China.
Weigers, Karl E., “Seven Truths About Peer Reviews”Cutter IT Journal, vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 31-37 (Jul. 2002).

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

Process for measuring coding productivity does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with Process for measuring coding productivity, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Process for measuring coding productivity will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3648421