Guido Salvaneschi
Sven Amann
Mira Mezini
ABSTRACT
Starting from the first investigations with strictly functional languages, reactive programming has been proposed as THE programming paradigm for reactive applications. The advantages of designs based on this style over designs based on the Observer design pattern have been studied for a long time. Over the years, researchers have enriched reactive languages with more powerful abstractions, embedded these abstractions into mainstream languages – including object-oriented languages – and applied reactive programming to several domains, like GUIs, animations, Web applications, robotics, and sensor networks. However, an important assumption behind this line of research – that, beside other advantages, reactive programming makes a wide class of otherwise cumbersome applications more comprehensible – has never been evaluated. In this paper, we present the design and the results of the first empirical study that evaluates the effect of reactive programming on comprehensibility compared to the traditional object-oriented style with the Observer design pattern. Results confirm the conjecture that comprehensibility is enhanced by reactive programming. In the experiment, the reactive programming group significantly outperforms the other group.
- H. Abelson and G. J. Sussman. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. 2nd. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1996. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- E. Bainomugisha, A. L. Carreton, T. v. Cutsem, S. Mostinckx, and W. d. Meuter. “A survey on reactive programming.” In: ACM Comput. Surv. 45.4 (Aug. 2013), 52:1–52:34. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. H. Cooper and S. Krishnamurthi. “Embedding Dynamic Dataflow in a Call-by-value Language.” In: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Programming Languages and Systems. ESOP’06. Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag, 2006, pp. 294–308. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Cornelissen, A. Zaidman, and A. van Deursen. “A Controlled Experiment for Program Comprehension Through Trace Visualization.” In: IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 37.3 (May 2011), pp. 341–355. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. L. Corritore and S. Wiedenbeck. “Mental Representations of Expert Procedural and Object-oriented Programmers in a Software Maintenance Task.” In: Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 50.1 (Jan. 1999), pp. 61–83. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Détienne. Software Design—cognitive Aspects. Ed. by F. Bott. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Di Penta, R. E. K. Stirewalt, and E. Kraemer. “Designing your Next Empirical Study on Program Comprehension.” In: Program Comprehension, 2007. ICPC ’07. 15th IEEE International Conference on. 2007, pp. 281–285. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Elliott. “Functional Implementations of Continuous Modeled Animation.” In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Principles of Declarative Programming. PLILP ’98/ALP ’98. London, UK, UK: Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 284–299. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Elliott and P. Hudak. “Functional reactive animation.” In: Proceedings of the second ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming. ICFP ’97. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ACM, 1997, pp. 263–273. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Ellis, J. Stylos, and B. Myers. “The Factory Pattern in API Design: A Usability Evaluation.” In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE ’07. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2007, pp. 302–312. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Endrikat and S. Hanenberg. “Is Aspect-Oriented Programming a Rewarding Investment into Future Code Changes? A Socio-technical Study on Development and Maintenance Time.” In: Program Comprehension (ICPC), 2011 IEEE 19th International Conference on. 2011, pp. 51–60. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. D. Fleming, E. Kraemer, R. E. K. Stirewalt, S. Xie, and L. K. Dillon. “A Study of Student Strategies for the Corrective Maintenance of Concurrent Software.” In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE ’08. Leipzig, Germany: ACM, 2008, pp. 759–768. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. N. Freeman-Benson. “Kaleidoscope: mixing objects, constraints, and imperative programming.” In: OOPSLA/ECOOP ’90. Ottawa, Canada: ACM, 1990, pp. 77–88. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gamma, Helm, Johnson, and Vlissides. Design Patterns Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Hanenberg. “An Experiment About Static and Dynamic Type Systems: Doubts About the Positive Impact of Static Type Systems on Development Time.” In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. OOPSLA ’10. Reno/Tahoe, Nevada, USA: ACM, 2010, pp. 22–35. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Hanenberg. “An Experiment About Static and Dynamic Type Systems: Doubts About the Positive Impact of Static Type Systems on Development Time.” In: SIGPLAN Not. 45.10 (Oct. 2010), pp. 22–35. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Hanenberg, S. Kleinschmager, and M. Josupeit-Walter. “Does Aspect-oriented Programming Increase the Development Speed for Crosscutting Code? An Empirical Study.” In: Proceedings of the 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ESEM ’09. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 156–167. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Hoppe and S. Hanenberg. “Do Developers Benefit from Generic Types?: An Empirical Comparison of Generic and Raw Types in Java.” In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. OOPSLA ’13. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA: ACM, 2013, pp. 457–474. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Hudak, A. Courtney, H. Nilsson, and J. Peterson. “Arrows, Robots, and Functional Reactive Programming.” In: Summer School on Advanced Functional Programming 2002, Oxford University. Vol. 2638. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 2003, pp. 159–187.Google Scholar
- N. Juristo and A. M. Moreno. Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. 1st. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Kleinschmager and S. Hanenberg. “How to Rate Programming Skills in Programming Experiments?: A Preliminary, Exploratory, Study Based on University Marks, Pretests, and Self-estimation.” In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools. PLATEAU ’11. Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM, 2011, pp. 15–24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. D. LaToza, D. Garlan, J. D. Herbsleb, and B. A. Myers. “Program Comprehension As Fact Finding.” In: Proceedings of the the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on The Foundations of Software Engineering. ESEC-FSE ’07. Dubrovnik, Croatia: ACM, 2007, pp. 361–370. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. D. LaToza and B. A. Myers. “Developers Ask Reachability Questions.” In: Proceedings of the 32Nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1. ICSE ’10. Cape Town, South Africa: ACM, 2010, pp. 185–194. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. D. LaToza, G. Venolia, and R. DeLine. “Maintaining Mental Models: A Study of Developer Work Habits.” In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE ’06. Shanghai, China: ACM, 2006, pp. 492– 501. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Liberty and P. Betts. Programming Reactive Extensions and LINQ. 1st. Berkely, CA, USA: Apress, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Maier and M. Odersky. Deprecating the Observer Pattern with Scala.React. Tech. rep. 2012.Google Scholar
- I. Maier and M. Odersky. “Higher-Order Reactive Programming with Incremental Lists.” In: ECOOP 2013 - Object-Oriented Programming. Ed. by G. Castagna. Vol. 7920. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 707–731. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Mayer, S. Hanenberg, R. Robbes, É. Tanter, and A. Stefik. “An Empirical Study of the Influence of Static Type Systems on the Usability of Undocumented Software.” In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. OOPSLA ’12. Tucson, Arizona, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 683– 702. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. A. Meyerovich, A. Guha, J. Baskin, G. H. Cooper, M. Greenberg, A. Bromfield, and S. Krishnamurthi. “Flapjax: a programming language for Ajax applications.” In: OOPSLA ’09. Orlando, Florida, USA: ACM, 2009, pp. 1–20. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. A. Myers, R. G. McDaniel, R. C. Miller, A. S. Ferrency, A. Faulring, B. D. Kyle, A. Mickish, A. Klimovitski, and P. Doane. “The Amulet Environment: New Models for Effective User Interface Software Development.” In: IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23.6 (June 1997), pp. 347–365. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Newton, G. Morrisett, and M. Welsh. “The Regiment Macroprogramming System.” In: Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2007. IPSN 2007. 6th International Symposium on. 2007, pp. 489–498. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Olivero, M. Lanza, M. D’ambros, and R. Robbes. “Tracking Human-centric Controlled Experiments with Biscuit.” In: Proceedings of the ACM 4th Annual Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools. PLATEAU ’12. Tucson, Arizona, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 1–6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Pankratius, F. Schmidt, and G. Garreton. “Combining functional and imperative programming for multicore software: An empirical study evaluating Scala and Java.” In: Software Engineering (ICSE), 2012 34th International Conference on. 2012, pp. 123–133. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Pennington. “Stimulus structures and mental representations in expert comprehension of computer programs.” In: Cognitive Psychology 19.3 (1987), pp. 295–341.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Prechelt. “An Empirical Comparison of Seven Programming Languages.” In: Computer 33.10 (Oct. 2000), pp. 23– 29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Quante. “Do Dynamic Object Process Graphs Support Program Understanding? - A Controlled Experiment.” In: Program Comprehension, 2008. ICPC 2008. The 16th IEEE International Conference on. June 2008, pp. 73–82. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Ramalingam and S. Wiedenbeck. “An empirical study of novice program comprehension in the imperative and objectoriented styles.” In: Papers presented at the seventh workshop on Empirical studies of programmers. ESP ’97. Alexandria, Virginia, USA: ACM, 1997, pp. 124–139. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Roehm, R. Tiarks, R. Koschke, and W. Maalej. “How do professional developers comprehend software?” In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2012. Zurich, Switzerland: IEEE Press, 2012, pp. 255–265. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Salvaneschi, J. Drechsler, and M. Mezini. “Towards Distributed Reactive Programming.” In: Coordination Models and Languages. Springer. 2013, pp. 226–235.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Salvaneschi, G. Hintz, and M. Mezini. “REScala: Bridging Between Object-oriented and Functional Style in Reactive Applications.” In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Modularity. MODULARITY ’14. Lugano, Switzerland: ACM, 2014, pp. 25–36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Salvaneschi and M. Mezini. “Towards Reactive Programming for Object-Oriented Applications.” English. In: Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development XI. Ed. by S. Chiba, É. Tanter, E. Bodden, S. Maoz, and J. Kienzle. Vol. 8400. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014, pp. 227–261.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M.-A. Storey. “Theories, Tools and Research Methods in Program Comprehension: Past, Present and Future.” In: Software Quality Control 14.3 (Sept. 2006), pp. 187–208. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Stylos and S. Clarke. “Usability Implications of Requiring Parameters in Objects’ Constructors.” In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE ’07. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2007, pp. 529–539. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Stylos and B. A. Myers. “The Implications of Method Placement on API Learnability.” In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. SIGSOFT ’08/FSE-16. Atlanta, Georgia: ACM, 2008, pp. 105–112. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Wettel, M. Lanza, and R. Robbes. “Software Systems As Cities: A Controlled Experiment.” In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE ’11. Honolulu, HI, USA: ACM, 2011, pp. 551–560. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- An empirical study on program comprehension with reactive programming
Recommendations
A survey on reactive programming
Reactive programming has recently gained popularity as a paradigm that is well-suited for developing event-driven and interactive applications. It facilitates the development of such applications by providing abstractions to express time-varying values ...
Reactive programming experience with REScala
Programming '18: Companion Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Art, Science, and Engineering of ProgrammingReactive programming is a recent programming paradigm that specifically targets reactive applications. Over the years, a number of reactive languages have been proposed, with different combinations of features, and various target domains.
...
An empirical study on code comprehension: data context interaction compared to classical object oriented
ICPC '17: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Program ComprehensionSource code comprehension affects software development --- especially its maintenance --- where code reading is one of the most time-consuming activities. A programming language, together with the programming paradigm it supports, is a strong factor ...
Comments