Code Spartanization: one rational approach for resolving religious style wars

ABSTRACT

Spartan programming is a coding style which tries to minimize the elements of code, like in a laconic speech. In the context of code, the minimized elements of speech include lines, characters, arguments, nesting use of ifs and whiles, etc. The style is achieved by the process of repeated application of code transformation techniques, or refactoring operations, drawn from the spartan toolbox of tippers. Each tipper improves at least one of the code size metrics, without degrading any of the others. We present the unique look of spartan code, and the process of achieving it, including the three main kinds of tippers: structural, nominal, and modular. We do not make the case for the spartan style here, leaving the readers to find beauty or savageness in it. The evaluation part of this work gives evidence that the application of structural tippers contributes to the naturalness of software.

References

1. M. Allamanis and C. Sutton. Mining source code repositories at massive scale using lang, modeling. In Proc. of 10^th Working Conf. on Mining Soft. Repositories (MSR'13), pages 207--216, San Francisco, California, USA, May18--19 2013.
2. K. Arnold and J. Gosling. The JAVA Programming Language. The Java Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1996.
3. J. Atwood. Spartan programming. https://blog.codinghorror.com/spartan-programming/.
4. G. V. Bochmann. Multiple exits from a loop without the goto. Commun. ACM, 16(7):443--444, July 1973.
5. M. Burrows and D. J. Wheeler. A block-sorting lossless data compression algorithm. Technical Report 124, Digital Systems Research Center, May 10 1994.
6. L. Clark. A linguistic contribution to goto-less prog. Commun. ACM, 27(4):349--350, Apr. 1984.
7. E. W. Dijkstra. Letters to the editor: Go to statement considered harmful. Commun. ACM, 11(3):147--148, Mar. 1968.
8. A. A. Donovan and B. W. Kernighan. The Go Programming Language. Addison-Wesley Professional, Nov. 2015.
9. M. Ege, Raimund Singh and B. Meyer. Proceedings of the technology of object-oriented languages 26. In Proceedings of the Technology of Object-Oriented Languages 26, TOOLS '98, 1998.
10. J. Y. Gil and G. Lalouche. When do soft, complexity metrics mean nothing? ---when examined out of context. Journal of Object Technology, 15(1):2:1--25, 2016.
11. Y. Gil, M. Goldstein, and D. Moshkovich. How much information do soft, metrics contain? In Proc. of the 3^rd ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Prog. Lang, and Tools, PLATEAU '11, pages 57--64, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM Press.
12. Y. Gil and G. Lalouche. On the correlation between size and metric validity. Empirical Soft. Eng., 2016.
13. W. G. Griswold, M. I. Chen, R. W. Bowdidge, J. L. Cabaniss, V. B. Nguyen, and J. David Morgenthaler. Tool support for planning the restructuring of data abstractions in large systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 24(7):534--558, July 1998.
14. A. Hindle, E. T. Barr, Z. Su, M. Gabel, and P. Devanbu. On the naturalness of soft. In Proc. of the 34^th Int. Conf. on Soft. Eng., ICSE '12, pages 837--847, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012. IEEE Press.
15. R. Holmes and G. C. Murphy. Using structural context to recommend source code examples. In Proc. of the 27^th Conf. on Soft. Eng., ICSE '05, pages 117--125, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
16. A. Jbara and D. G. Feitelson. On the effect of code regularity on comprehension. In Proc. of 22^nd Int. Conf. on Program Comprehension (ICPC'14), pages 189---200, June2--3 2014.
17. S. P. Jones. Haskell 98 Language and Libraries: The Revisited Report. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
18. D. E. Knuth. Structured programming with go to statements. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 6(4):261--301, Dec. 1974.
19. K. J. Lieberherr. Adaptive Object-Oriented Software: The Demeter Method with Propagation Patterns. PWS-Kent Publishing, 1996.
20. M. Lutz. Programming Python. O'Reilly, first edition, Oct. 1996.
21. L. Ramshaw. Eliminating go to's while preserving program structure. Journal of the ACM, 35(4):893--920, Oct. 1988.
22. E. Sennesh and Y. Gil. Structured gotos are (slightly) harmful. In Proc. of the 31^st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC '16, pages 1784--1789, 2016.
23. N. Wirth. The programming language Pascal. Acta Informatica, 1:35---63, 1971.
24. W. A. Wulf. A case against the GOTO. In E. N. Yourdon, editor, Classics in Soft. Eng., pages 83---98. Yourdon Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1979.
25. F. Zhang, Q. Zheng, Y. Zou, and A. E. Hassan. Cross-project defect prediction using a connectivity-based unsupervised classifier. In Proc. of the 38^th Int. Conf. on Soft. Eng., ICSE '16, pages 309--320, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.
26. T. A. Zoethout and E. I. N. Stein. Why the Goto is harmful. SIGPLAN Not., 14(11):116--122, Nov. 1979.

Index Terms

• General and reference

  • Cross-computing tools and techniques

    • Empirical studies

    • Metrics

• Software and its engineering

  • Software creation and management

    • Software development process management

      • Software development methods

    • Software development techniques

    • Software post-development issues

      • Software evolution

  • Software notations and tools

    • Compilers

      • Parsers

      • Source code generation

    • Development frameworks and environments

      • Application specific development environments

    • Software maintenance tools