Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Predicting the effort of program language comprehension: The case of HLL vs. Assembly
KTH, School of Electrical Engineering (EES), Industrial Information and Control Systems.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3293-1681
KTH, School of Electrical Engineering (EES), Industrial Information and Control Systems.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3922-9606
2005 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

One important aspect of the quality of programming languages is the effort required by a programmer to understand code written in the language. A historical case where this issue was at the forefront was in the debate between the proponents of high-level languages (HLL) and Assembly languages, where the main argument for HLLs were that they were easier for people to understand.

Being one out of a series of articles arguing for a unified theory for software engineering, this article proposes the use of a specific theoretical model from the discipline of cognitive psychology as a tool for predicting language comprehension effort. Describing human problem solving faculties, the ACT-R model [Anderson and Lebiere 1998] predicts that the effort of understanding a program written in C is only 36,5% of the effort of understanding a comparable program written in Assembly.

In order to validate the theory, an experiment was performed where a number of engineering students were exposed to tasks of program comprehension. This empirical assessment demonstrated that the effort of understanding a program written in C is 32,5% of the effort of understanding a comparable program written in Assembly. Comparing the results of the theoretical predictions and the empirical assessments of program comprehension effort, we find that the theoretical model performs surprisingly well. The prediction error for the execution of an Assembly program was 5,1% while the error for C was 6,8%. The prediction error for the ratio between the two program languages amounted to 12,6%. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2005. , 24 p.
Keyword [en]
ACT-R, Programming Language, C, Assembly, HLL, Unified Theory of Software Engineering, Program Comprehension.
National Category
Computer Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-123555OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-123555DiVA: diva2:627551
Note

QC 20130618

Available from: 2013-06-12 Created: 2013-06-12 Last updated: 2013-06-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

JohnsonEkstedt2005(874 kB)146 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 874 kBChecksum SHA-512
a59b01302a986f0b40915a8d1fb3646324d60ba67889a6969e8aff1072a0cc0fbc95fbdef31ace80263e969ec3904839be21fa6aa5ae82edbf3c4f47ef242b01
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Authority records BETA

Johnson, PontusEkstedt, Mathias

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Johnson, PontusEkstedt, Mathias
By organisation
Industrial Information and Control Systems
Computer Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 146 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 76 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf