Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Code clones and developer behavior: results of two surveys of the clone research community

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The literature presents conflicting claims regarding the effects of clones on software maintainability. For a community to progress, it is important to identify and address those areas of disagreement. Many claims, such as those related to developer behavior, either lack human-based empirical validation or are contradicted by other studies. This paper describes the results of two surveys to evaluate the level of agreement among clone researchers regarding claims that have not yet been validated through human-based empirical study. The surveys covered three key clone-related research topics: general information, developer behavior, and evolution. Survey 1 focused on high-level information about all three topics, whereas Survey 2 focused specifically on developer behavior. Approximately 20 clone researchers responded to each survey. The survey responses showed a lack of agreement on some major clone-related topics. First, the respondents disagree about the definitions of clone types, with some indicating the need for a taxonomy based upon developer intent. Second, the respondents were uncertain whether the ratio of cloned to non-cloned code affected system quality. Finally, the respondents disagree about the usefulness of various detection, analysis, evolution, and visualization tools for clone management tasks such as tracking and refactoring of clones. The overall results indicate the need for more focused, human-based empirical research regarding the effects of clones during maintenance. The paper proposes a strategy for future research regarding developer behavior and code clones in order to bridge the gap between clone research and the application of that research in clone maintenance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Clone-aware tools provide information about clones residing in a software system, for example detection results, evolution information or tracking information of clones.

  2. http://students.cis.uab.edu/tairasr/clones/literature/

  3. http://iwsc2012.ist.osaka-u.ac.jp/files/IWSC2012-CFP.pdf

References

  • Barbour L, Khomh F, Zou Y (2013) An empirical study of faults in late propagation clone genealogies. J Softw Evol Process 25(11):1139–1165. doi:10.1002/smr.1597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter I, Yahin A, Moura L, Sant’Anna M, Bier L (1998) Clone detection using abstract syntax trees. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software maintenance, 1998. doi:10.1109/ICSM.1998.738528, pp 368–377

  • Bellon S, Koschke R, Antoniol G, Krinke J, Merlo E (2007) Comparison and evaluation of clone detection tools. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33 (9):577–591. doi:10.1109/TSE.2007.70725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai D, Kim M (2011) An empirical study of long-lived code clones. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on fundamental approaches to software engineering: part of the joint european conferences on theory and practice of software, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, FASE’11/ETAPS’11, pp 432–446. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1987434.1987474

  • Chatterji D, Carver J, Massengil B, Oslin J, Kraft N (2011) Measuring the efficacy of code clone information in a bug localization task: an empirical study. In: International symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, pp 20–29

  • Chatterji D, Carver J, Kraft N (2012) Claims and beliefs about code clones: do we agree as a community? a survey. In: 6th International workshop on software clones (IWSC), pp 15–21

  • Chatterji D, Carver J, Kraft N, Harder J (2013) Effects of cloned code on software maintainability: a replicated developer study. In: 20th Working conference on reverse engineering (WCRE), pp 112–121

  • De Wit M, Zaidman A, van Deursen A (2009) Managing code clones using dynamic change tracking and resolution.. In: IEEE international conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM 2009, pp 169– 178

  • Fowler M (1999) Refactoring: improving the design of existing code. Addison-Wesley, Boston

  • Glaser BG (1965) The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 12(4):436–445. doi:10.2307/798843. ArticleType: research-article / Full publication date: Spring, 1965 / Copyright 1965 University of California Press

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göde N, Koschke R (2013) Studying clone evolution using incremental clone detection. J Softw Evol Process 25(2):165–192. doi:10.1002/smr.520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harder J, Göde N (2012) Cloned code: stable code. J Softw Evol Process. doi:10.1002/smr.1551

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski P, Hou D (2010) Aiding software maintenance with copy-and-paste clone-awareness. In: 2010 IEEE 18th international conference on program comprehension (ICPC), pp 170–179

  • Kamiya T, Kusumoto S, Inoue K (2002) Ccfinder: a multilinguistic token-based code clone detection system for large scale source code. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28 (7):654–670. doi:10.1109/TSE.2002.1019480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapser CJ, Godfrey MW (2008a) “cloning considered harmful” considered harmful: patterns of cloning in software. Empirical Softw Engg 13(6):645–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapser CJ, Godfrey MW (2008b) “cloning considered harmful” considered harmful: patterns of cloning in software. Empir Softw Eng 13(6):645–692. doi:10.1007/s10664-008-9076-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim M, Bergman L, Lau T, Notkin D (2004) An ethnographic study of copy and paste programming practices in oopl. In: Proceedings 2004 international symposium on empirical software engineering , pp 83–92

  • Kim M, Sazawal V, Notkin D, Murphy G (2005) An empirical study of code clone genealogies. SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 30(5):187–196. doi:10.1145/1095430.1081737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschke R, Baxter ID, Conradt M, Cordy JR (2012) Software clone management towards industrial application (Dagstuhl Seminar 12071). Dagstuhl Reports 2(2):21–57. doi:10.4230/DagRep.2.2.21

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano A, Wermelinger M, Nuseibeh B (2007) Evaluating the harmfulness of cloning: a change based experiment. In: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on mining software repositories. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, p 18. MSR ’07

  • Pate J R, Tairas R, Kraft N A (2013) Clone evolution: a systematic review. J Softw Evol Process 25(3):261–283. doi:10.1002/smr.579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman F, Bird C, Devanbu P (2010) Clones: what is that smell? In: 7th IEEE working conference on mining software repositories, pp 72–81

  • Roy C, Zibran M, Koschke R (2014) The vision of software clone management: past, present, and future (keynote paper). In: 2014 Software evolution week - IEEE conference on software maintenance, Reengineering and Reverse Engineering, pp 18–33

  • Roy CK, Cordy JR, Koschke R (2009) Comparison and evaluation of code clone detection techniques and tools: a qualitative approach. Sci Comput Program 74 (7):470–495. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2009.02.007

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Thummalapenta S, Cerulo L, Aversano L, Di Penta M (2010) An empirical study on the maintenance of source code clones. Empirical Softw Engg 15(1):1–34. doi:10.1007/s10664-009-9108-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang G, Peng X, Xing Z, Zhao W (2012) Cloning practices: Why developers clone and what can be changed. In: 28th IEEE international conference on software maintenance, pp 285–294

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the survey respondents. We acknowledge support from NSF grant CCF-0915559.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

    Debarshi Chatterji & Jeffrey C. Carver

  2. ABB Corporate Research, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Nicholas A. Kraft

Authors
  1. Debarshi Chatterji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey C. Carver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas A. Kraft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey C. Carver.

Additional information

Communicated by: Massimiliano Di Penta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chatterji, D., Carver, J.C. & Kraft, N.A. Code clones and developer behavior: results of two surveys of the clone research community. Empir Software Eng 21, 1476–1508 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-015-9394-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-015-9394-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation