Cargando…
On the accuracy of code complexity metrics: A neuroscience-based guideline for improvement
Complexity is the key element of software quality. This article investigates the problem of measuring code complexity and discusses the results of a controlled experiment to compare different views and methods to measure code complexity. Participants (27 programmers) were asked to read and (try to)...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9942489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36825214 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.1065366 |
_version_ | 1784891512839995392 |
---|---|
author | Hao, Gao Hijazi, Haytham Durães, João Medeiros, Júlio Couceiro, Ricardo Lam, Chan Tong Teixeira, César Castelhano, João Castelo Branco, Miguel Carvalho, Paulo Madeira, Henrique |
author_facet | Hao, Gao Hijazi, Haytham Durães, João Medeiros, Júlio Couceiro, Ricardo Lam, Chan Tong Teixeira, César Castelhano, João Castelo Branco, Miguel Carvalho, Paulo Madeira, Henrique |
author_sort | Hao, Gao |
collection | PubMed |
description | Complexity is the key element of software quality. This article investigates the problem of measuring code complexity and discusses the results of a controlled experiment to compare different views and methods to measure code complexity. Participants (27 programmers) were asked to read and (try to) understand a set of programs, while the complexity of such programs is assessed through different methods and perspectives: (a) classic code complexity metrics such as McCabe and Halstead metrics, (b) cognitive complexity metrics based on scored code constructs, (c) cognitive complexity metrics from state-of-the-art tools such as SonarQube, (d) human-centered metrics relying on the direct assessment of programmers’ behavioral features (e.g., reading time, and revisits) using eye tracking, and (e) cognitive load/mental effort assessed using electroencephalography (EEG). The human-centered perspective was complemented by the subjective evaluation of participants on the mental effort required to understand the programs using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX). Additionally, the evaluation of the code complexity is measured at both the program level and, whenever possible, at the very low level of code constructs/code regions, to identify the actual code elements and the code context that may trigger a complexity surge in the programmers’ perception of code comprehension difficulty. The programmers’ cognitive load measured using EEG was used as a reference to evaluate how the different metrics can express the (human) difficulty in comprehending the code. Extensive experimental results show that popular metrics such as V(g) and the complexity metric from SonarSource tools deviate considerably from the programmers’ perception of code complexity and often do not show the expected monotonic behavior. The article summarizes the findings in a set of guidelines to improve existing code complexity metrics, particularly state-of-the-art metrics such as cognitive complexity from SonarSource tools. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9942489 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99424892023-02-22 On the accuracy of code complexity metrics: A neuroscience-based guideline for improvement Hao, Gao Hijazi, Haytham Durães, João Medeiros, Júlio Couceiro, Ricardo Lam, Chan Tong Teixeira, César Castelhano, João Castelo Branco, Miguel Carvalho, Paulo Madeira, Henrique Front Neurosci Neuroscience Complexity is the key element of software quality. This article investigates the problem of measuring code complexity and discusses the results of a controlled experiment to compare different views and methods to measure code complexity. Participants (27 programmers) were asked to read and (try to) understand a set of programs, while the complexity of such programs is assessed through different methods and perspectives: (a) classic code complexity metrics such as McCabe and Halstead metrics, (b) cognitive complexity metrics based on scored code constructs, (c) cognitive complexity metrics from state-of-the-art tools such as SonarQube, (d) human-centered metrics relying on the direct assessment of programmers’ behavioral features (e.g., reading time, and revisits) using eye tracking, and (e) cognitive load/mental effort assessed using electroencephalography (EEG). The human-centered perspective was complemented by the subjective evaluation of participants on the mental effort required to understand the programs using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX). Additionally, the evaluation of the code complexity is measured at both the program level and, whenever possible, at the very low level of code constructs/code regions, to identify the actual code elements and the code context that may trigger a complexity surge in the programmers’ perception of code comprehension difficulty. The programmers’ cognitive load measured using EEG was used as a reference to evaluate how the different metrics can express the (human) difficulty in comprehending the code. Extensive experimental results show that popular metrics such as V(g) and the complexity metric from SonarSource tools deviate considerably from the programmers’ perception of code complexity and often do not show the expected monotonic behavior. The article summarizes the findings in a set of guidelines to improve existing code complexity metrics, particularly state-of-the-art metrics such as cognitive complexity from SonarSource tools. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9942489/ /pubmed/36825214 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.1065366 Text en Copyright © 2023 Hao, Hijazi, Durães, Medeiros, Couceiro, Lam, Teixeira, Castelhano, Castelo Branco, Carvalho and Madeira. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Hao, Gao Hijazi, Haytham Durães, João Medeiros, Júlio Couceiro, Ricardo Lam, Chan Tong Teixeira, César Castelhano, João Castelo Branco, Miguel Carvalho, Paulo Madeira, Henrique On the accuracy of code complexity metrics: A neuroscience-based guideline for improvement |
title | On the accuracy of code complexity metrics: A neuroscience-based guideline for improvement |
title_full | On the accuracy of code complexity metrics: A neuroscience-based guideline for improvement |
title_fullStr | On the accuracy of code complexity metrics: A neuroscience-based guideline for improvement |
title_full_unstemmed | On the accuracy of code complexity metrics: A neuroscience-based guideline for improvement |
title_short | On the accuracy of code complexity metrics: A neuroscience-based guideline for improvement |
title_sort | on the accuracy of code complexity metrics: a neuroscience-based guideline for improvement |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9942489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36825214 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.1065366 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT haogao ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT hijazihaytham ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT duraesjoao ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT medeirosjulio ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT couceiroricardo ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT lamchantong ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT teixeiracesar ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT castelhanojoao ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT castelobrancomiguel ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT carvalhopaulo ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement AT madeirahenrique ontheaccuracyofcodecomplexitymetricsaneurosciencebasedguidelineforimprovement |