Context Reuse can improve productivity and maintainability in software development. Research has proposed a wide range of methods and techniques. Are these successfully adopted in practice? Objective We propose a preliminary answer by integrating two in-depth empirical studies on software reuse at two large software-producing companies. Method We compare and interpret the study results with a focus on reuse practices, effects, and context. Results Both companies perform pragmatic reuse of code produced within the company, not leveraging other available artefacts. Reusable entities are retrieved from a central repository, if present. Otherwise, direct communication with trusted colleagues is crucial for access. Reuse processes remain implicit and reflect the development style. In a homogeneous infrastructure-supported context, participants strongly agreed on higher development pace and less maintenance effort as reuse benefits. In a heterogeneous context with fragmented infrastructure, these benefits did not materialize. Neither case reports statistically significant evidence of negative side effects of reuse nor inhibitors. In both cases, a lack of reuse led to duplicate implementations. Conclusion Technological advances have improved the way reuse concepts can be applied in practice. Homogeneity in development process and tool support seem necessary preconditions. Developing and adopting adequate reuse strategies in heterogeneous contexts remains challenging.

Comparing reuse practices in two large software-producing companies / Bauer, Veronika; Vetro', Antonio. - In: THE JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE. - ISSN 0164-1212. - STAMPA. - 117:(2016), pp. 545-582. [10.1016/j.jss.2016.03.067]

Comparing reuse practices in two large software-producing companies

VETRO', ANTONIO
2016

Abstract

Context Reuse can improve productivity and maintainability in software development. Research has proposed a wide range of methods and techniques. Are these successfully adopted in practice? Objective We propose a preliminary answer by integrating two in-depth empirical studies on software reuse at two large software-producing companies. Method We compare and interpret the study results with a focus on reuse practices, effects, and context. Results Both companies perform pragmatic reuse of code produced within the company, not leveraging other available artefacts. Reusable entities are retrieved from a central repository, if present. Otherwise, direct communication with trusted colleagues is crucial for access. Reuse processes remain implicit and reflect the development style. In a homogeneous infrastructure-supported context, participants strongly agreed on higher development pace and less maintenance effort as reuse benefits. In a heterogeneous context with fragmented infrastructure, these benefits did not materialize. Neither case reports statistically significant evidence of negative side effects of reuse nor inhibitors. In both cases, a lack of reuse led to duplicate implementations. Conclusion Technological advances have improved the way reuse concepts can be applied in practice. Homogeneity in development process and tool support seem necessary preconditions. Developing and adopting adequate reuse strategies in heterogeneous contexts remains challenging.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2016-jss-reuse.pdf

Open Access dal 15/04/2018

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia: 2. Post-print / Author's Accepted Manuscript
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.05 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.05 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
1-s2.0-S0164121216300176-main.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: 2a Post-print versione editoriale / Version of Record
Licenza: Non Pubblico - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 6.78 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
6.78 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11583/2643660
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo