Re: Re: Ranking of OO refactorings

Thanks for sharing, very interesting data.


For the original post - Another viewpoint, rather than looking for the most
frequent refactorings would be to combine that with thinking about which
ones that are most difficult to do manually.

For me, this pushes Extract Method very high  - it's "partially local"
(though more global if you look elsewhere for matching code), and tricky to
get right (data flow, handling parameters, etc.) Martin Fowler spoke of
this as "crossing the Rubicon" - the line that means you're doing serious
analysis.

The global renames are probably next for me, especially in OO languages
where the rename applies only to related classes.

Unfortunately, C++ is a very complex language syntactically and
semantically. That has really made it hard for the vendors to automate the
refactorings.


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Danny Dig <[email protected]> wrote:

> Here is a very recent study from my group. The empirical study was
> presented last week at ECOOP'13. This study ranks the top-10 most frequent
> refactorings, although for Java:
> http://dig.cs.illinois.edu/papers/ECOOP13-NegaraETAL-Inferring.pdf
>
> best,
> Danny
> [...]
>
> --
> Danny Dig
> Research Assistant Professor at UIUC
>
> --
   Bill Wake   Industrial Logic, Inc.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/refactoring/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/refactoring/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/