Top

Empirical Software Engineering

Published in:

05-07-2017

Is cloned code really stable?

Authors: Manishankar Mondal, Md Saidur Rahman, Chanchal K. Roy, Kevin A. Schneider

Published in: Empirical Software Engineering | Issue 2/2018

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Clone has emerged as a controversial term in software engineering research and practice. The impact of clones is of great importance from software maintenance perspectives. Stability is a well investigated term in assessing the impacts of clones on software maintenance. If code clones appear to exhibit a higher instability (i.e., higher change-proneness) than non-cloned code, then we can expect that code clones require higher maintenance effort and cost than non-cloned code. A number of studies have been done on the comparative stability of cloned and non-cloned code. However, these studies could not come to a consensus. While some studies show that code clones are more stable than non-cloned code, the other studies provide empirical evidence of higher instability of code clones. The possible reasons behind these contradictory findings are that different studies investigated different aspects of stability using different clone detection tools on different subject systems using different experimental setups. Also, the subject systems were not of wide varieties. Emphasizing these issues (with several others mentioned in the motivation) we have conducted a comprehensive empirical study where we have - (i) implemented and investigated seven existing methodologies that explored different aspects of stability, (ii) used two clone detection tools (NiCad and CCFinderX) to implement each of these seven methodologies, and (iii) investigated the stability of three types (Type-1, Type-2, Type-3) of clones. Our investigation on 12 diverse subject systems covering three programming languages (Java, C, C#) with a list of 8 stability assessment metrics suggest that (i) cloned code is often more unstable (change-prone) than non-cloned code in the maintenance phase, (ii) both Type 1 and Type 3 clones appear to exhibit higher instability than Type 2 clones, (iii) clones in Java and C programming languages are more change-prone than the clones in C#, and (iv) changes to the clones in procedural programming languages seem to be more dispersed than the changes to the clones in object oriented languages. We also systematically replicated the original studies with their original settings and found mostly equivalent results as of the original studies. We believe that our findings are important for prioritizing code clones from management perspectives.

previous article Noise in Mylyn interaction traces and its impact on developers and recommendation systems

next article An empirical study of early access games on the Steam platform

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

SourceForge: http://sourceforge.net/

Aversano L, Cerulo L, Penta MD (2007) How clones are maintained: an empirical study. In: Proc CSMR, pp 81–90

Bakota T, Ferenc R, Gyimothy T (2007) Clone smells in software evolution. In: Proc ICSM, pp 24–33

Barbour L, Khomh F, Zou Y (2011) Late propagation in software clones. In: Proc ICSM, pp 273–282

Barbour L, Khomh F, Zou Y (2013) An empirical study of faults in late propagation clone genealogies. J Softw Evol Process 25(11):1139–1165CrossRef

Bettenburg N, Shang W, Ibrahim W, Adams B, Zou Y, Hassan A (2009) An empirical study on inconsistent changes to code clones at release level. In: Proc WCRE, pp 85–94

Cai D, Kim M (2011) An empirical study of long-lived code clones. In: Proc FASE/ETAPS, pp 432–446

Chatterji D, Carver JC, Kraft NA (2016) Code clones and developer behavior: results of two surveys of the clone research community. Empir Softw Eng 21(4):1476–1508CrossRef

Cordy JR, Roy CK (2011) The NiCad Clone Detector. In: Proc ICPC (Tool Demo Track), pp 219–220

Göde N, Harder J (2011) Clone Stability. In: Proc CSMR, pp 65–74

Göde N, Koschke R (2009) Incremental clone detection. In: Proc CSMR, pp 219–228

Göde N, Koschke R (2010) Studying clone evolution using incremental clone detection. JSME 25(2):165–192

Göde N, Koschke R (2011) Frequency and risks of changes to clones. In: Proc ICSE, pp 311–320

Harder J, Göde N (2013) Cloned code: stable code. J Softw Evol Process 25(10):1063–1088CrossRef

Higo Y, Kusumoto S (2009) Significant and scalable code clone detection with program dependency graph. In: Proc WCRE, pp 315–316

Hordijk W, Ponisio M, Wieringa R (2009) Harmfulness of code duplication—a structured review of the evidence. In: Proc EASE, pp 88–97

Hotta K, Sano Y, Higo Y, Kusumoto S (2010) Is duplicate code more frequently modified than non-duplicate code in software evolution?: an empirical study on open source software. In: Proc EVOL/IWPSE, pp 73–82

Islam JF, Mondal M, Roy CK (2016) Bug replication in code clones: an empirical study. In: Proc. SANER, pp 68–78

Jarzabek S, Xu Y (2010) Are clones harmful for maintenance? In: Proc IWSC, pp 73–74

Juergens E, Deissenboeck F, Hummel B, Wagner S (2009) Do code clones matter? In: Proc ICSE, pp 485–495

Kamiya T, Kusumoto S, Inoue K (2002) CCFinder: a multilinguistic token-based code clone detection system for large scale source code. TSE 28(7):654–670

Kapser C, Godfrey MW (2008) “Cloning considered harmful” considered harmful: patterns of cloning in software. ESE 13(6):645–692

Kim M, Sazawal V, Notkin D, Murphy GC (2005) An empirical study of code clone genealogies. In: Proc ESEC-FSE, pp 187–196

Krinke J (2007) A study of consistent and inconsistent changes to code clones. In: Proc WCRE, pp 170–178

Krinke J (2008) Is cloned code more stable than non-cloned code? In: Proc SCAM, pp 57–66

Krinke J (2011) Is cloned code older than non-cloned code? In: Proc IWSC, pp 28–33

Li J, Ernst MD (2011) CBCD: cloned buggy code detector. University of Washington Department of Computer Science and Engineering technical report UW-CSE-11-05-02. Seattle, May 2, 2011. Revised

Lozano A, Wermelinger M (2008) Assessing the effect of clones on changeability. In: Proc ICSM, pp 227–236

Lozano A, Wermelinger M (2010) Tracking clones’ imprint. In: Proc IWSC, pp 65–72

Lozano A, Wermelinger M, Nuseibeh B (2007) Evaluating the harmfulness of cloning: a change based experiment. In: Proc MSR, p 18

Mondal M, Rahman MS, Saha RK, Roy CK, Krinke J, Schneider KA (2011) An empirical study of the impacts of clones in software maintenance. In: Proc ICPC student research symposium track, pp 242–245

Mondal M, Roy CK, Rahman S, Saha RK, Krinke J, Schneider K A (2012a) Comparative stability of cloned and non-cloned code: an empirical study. In: Proc SAC, pp 1227–1234

Mondal M, Roy CK, Schneider KA (2012b) An empirical study on clone stability. ACR 12(3):20–36

Mondal M, Roy CK, Schneider KA (2012c) Dispersion of changes in cloned and non-cloned code. In: Proc IWSC, pp 29–35

Mondal M, Roy CK, Schneider K (2014a) An insight into the dispersion of changes in cloned and non-cloned code: a genealogy based empirical study. SCP 95(4):445–468

Mondal M, Roy CK, Schneider KA (2014b) Late propagation in near-miss clones: an empirical study. ECEASST 63:1–17

Mondal M, Roy CK, Schneider K A (2015) A comparative study on the bug-proneness of different types of code clones. In: Proc ICSME, pp 91–100

Mondal M, Roy CK, Schneider KA (2016) A comparative study on the intensity and harmfulness of late propagation in near-miss code clone. Softw Qual J 24(4):883–915CrossRef

Rahman F, Bird C, Devanbu P (2010) Clones: what is that smell? In: Proc MSR, pp 72–81

Rahman MS, Roy CK (2014) A change-type based empirical study on the stability of cloned code. In: Proc SCAM, pp 31–40

Rahman MS, Aryani A, Roy CK, Perin F (2013) On the relationships between domain-based coupling and code clones: an exploratory study. In: Proc ICSE NIER track, pp 1265–1268

Roy CK, Cordy JR (2008a) An empirical evaluation of function clones in open source software. In: Proc WCRE, pp 81–90

Roy CK, Cordy JR (2008b) NICAD: accurate detection of near-miss intentional clones using flexible pretty-printing and code normalization. In: Proc ICPC, pp 172–181

Roy CK, Cordy JR (2008c) Scenario-based comparison of clone detection techniques. In: Proc ICPC, pp 153–162

Roy CK, Cordy JR (2009) A mutation/injection-based automatic framework for evaluating code clone detection tools. In: Proc mutation, pp 157–166

Roy CK, Cordy JR, Koschke R (2009) Comparison and evaluation of code clone detection techniques and tools: a qualitative approach. SCP 2009(74):470–495MathSciNetMATH

Roy CK, Zibran MF, Koschke R (2014) The vision of software clone management: past, present and future. In: Proc CSMR-18/WCRE-21 software evolution week, p 16

Saha RK, Asaduzzaman M, Zibran MF, Roy CK, Schneider KA (2010) Evaluating code clone genealogies at release level: an empirical study. In: Proc SCAM, pp 87–96

Saha RK, Roy CK, Schneider KA (2011) An automatic framework for extracting and classifying near-miss clone genealogies. In: Proc ICSM, pp 293–302

Selim GMK, Barbour L, Shang W, Adams B, Hassan AE, Zou Y (2010) Studying the impact of clones on software defects. In: Proc WCRE, pp 13–21

Thummalapenta S, Cerulo L, Aversano L, Penta MD (2009) An empirical study on the maintenance of source code clones. ESE 15(1):1–34

Wang T, Harman M, Jia Y, Krinke J (2013) Searching for better configurations: a rigorous approach to clone evaluation. In: Proc ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, pp 455–465

Wang X, Dang Y, Zhang L, Zhang D, Lan E, Mei H (2012) Can I clone this piece of code here? In: Proc ASE, pp 170–179

Title: Is cloned code really stable?
Authors: Manishankar Mondal
Md Saidur Rahman
Chanchal K. Roy
Kevin A. Schneider
Publication date: 05-07-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Empirical Software Engineering / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1382-3256
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7616
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9528-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

An empirical study of early access games on the Steam platform

Addressing problems with replicability and validity of repository mining studies through a smart data platform

Data sets describing the circle of life in Ruby hosting, 2003–2016

FEVER: An approach to analyze feature-oriented changes and artefact co-evolution in highly configurable systems

Guest Editorial: Special section on mining software repositories

Appreciation to Empirical Software Engineering Reviewers of 2017

Premium Partner