Design Thinking Research pp 259-277

Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO) | Cite as

Applying Design Knowledge to Programming

Chapter

Abstract

Arguably programming involves design: computational logic – the program – is constantly reorganized to keep complexity manageable and provide for current and future coding activities to be feasible. However, design practices have gained less attention in the field of programming, even though decades of research on design have led to a large body of knowledge about theories, methods, and best practices. This chapter reports on the first results of our research efforts to transfer and apply design knowledge to programming activities. We improved tool support for software developers in two respects, both of which are based on key concepts in design practices: continuous feedback and ease of exploration.

References

  1. 1.
    T. Apiwattanapong, A. Orso, and M.J. Harrold. JDiff: A differencing technique and tool for object-oriented programs. Automated Software Engineering, 14(1):3–36, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Ball. On the limit of control flow analysis for regression test selection. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 23(2):134–142, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Ball. The Concept of Dynamic Analysis. In ESEC/FSE, pages 216–234, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V.R. Basili. Evolving and packaging reading technologies. J. Syst. Software, 38(1):3–12, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Beck. Test-driven Development: By Example. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Bible, G. Rothermel, and D.S. Rosenblum. A comparative study of coarse- and fine-grained safe regression test-selection techniques. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 10(2):149–183, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Brant, B. Foote, R.E. Johnson, and D. Roberts. Wrappers to the Rescue. In ECOOP, pages 396–417, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y.F. Chen, D.S. Rosenblum, and K.P. Vo. TestTube: A system for selective regression testing. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, 1994, pages 211–220, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T.A. Corbi. Program Understanding: Challenge for the 1990s. IBM Systems Journal, 28(2):294–306, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Cross. Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science. Design Issues, 17(3):49–55, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Fowler. Refactoring: improving the design of existing code. Addison-Wesley Professional, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Goldberg and D. Robson. Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation. Addison-Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Gschwind and J. Oberleitner. Improving Dynamic Data Analysis with Aspect-Oriented Programming. In CSMR, pages 259–268, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.J. Harrold, J.A. Jones, T. Li, D. Liang, A. Orso, M. Pennings, S. Sinha, S.A. Spoon, and A. Gujarathi. Regression Test Selection for Java software. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, pages 312–326. ACM New York, NY, USA, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M.J. Harrold and A. Orso. Retesting Software During Development and Maintenance. Frontiers of Software Maintenance, 2008. FoSM 2008., pages 99–108, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Huang, Y. Chen, J. Zhu, Z.J. Li, and H.F. Tan. An optimized change-driven regression testing selection strategy for binary Java applications. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM symposium on Applied Computing, pages 558–565. ACM New York, NY, USA, 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Ingalls, T. Kaehler, J. Maloney, S. Wallace, and A. Kay. Back to the Future: The Story of Squeak, a Practical Smalltalk Written in Itself. In OOPSLA, pages 318–326, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. Beck and C. Andres. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison- Wesley, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A.J. Ko, R. DeLine, and G. Venolia. Information Needs in Collocated Software Development Teams. In ICSE, pages 344–353, 2007.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Meszaros. XUnit Test Patterns: Refactoring Test Code. Prentice Hall, 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Perscheid, B. Steinert, R. Hirschfeld, F. Geller, and M. Haupt. Immediacy through Interactivity: Online Analysis of Run-time Behavior. In 17th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pages 77–86, Beverly, USA, 2010. IEEE.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Hirschfeld, B. Steinert, J. Lincke. Agile software development in virtual collaboration environments. In Larry Leifer Hasso Plattner, Christoph Meinel, editor, Design Thinking – Understand, Improve, Apply, pages 197–218. Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Rothermel and M.J. Harrold. Analyzing regression test selection techniques. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(8):529–551, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Rothermel and M.J. Harrold. A safe, efficient regression test selection technique. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 6(2):173–210, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Rothermel, M.J. Harrold, and J. Dedhia. Regression Test Selection for C++ Software. Software Testing, Verification & Reliability, 10(2):77–109, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Saff and M.D. Ernst. Reducing wasted development time via continuous testing. In ISSRE, page 281, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Schneiderman. Designing the User Interface. Addison-Wesley, 1992.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Steinert, M. Haupt, R. Krahn, and R. Hirschfeld. Continuous Selective Testing. In XP, pages 132–146, 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Software Architecture Group, Hasso-Plattner-InstituteUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations