Weyuker Properties

WEYUKER PROPERTIES
VS
MEASUREMENT IN THE PHYSICAL
SCIENCES
OUTLINE
► Introduction
► Weyuker’s Properties
► Software measurement
► Evaluation of Weyuker’s properties
► Measurement theory
► Whether software measurement is
really measurement in the physical
sciences
► Conclusion
► Introduction
sciences
► Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
► Weyuker proposed nine properties for the
evaluation of software complexity metric.
► None of these measures satisfied all of Weyuker’s
properties.
► I look at the foundation of measurement theory and
ask whether software measurement is
measurement in sense of measurement in the
physical sciences.
► Thus, if we accept Weyuker’s properties, we would
see that software measurement does not have
additive properties for all metric.
► This research is the basis of a paper that was
accepted for presentation in (what conference).
► Introduction
sciences
► Conclusion
WEYUKER’S PROPERTIES
► 1.Property One:
There are at least two programs with
differing complexity.
► 2.Property Two:
There are only a finite number of
programs of the same complexity.
► 3.Property Three:
This property states that there are multiple
► 4.Property Four:
This item expresses the condition that there
are functionally equivalent programs with
different complexities.
► 5.Property Five:
This property is satisfied for monotonic
measures. It roughly expresses the fact that
adding on to a program makes a more
complex program.
► 6. Property Six A:
This property is a contextual property. Code
occurring after different but equally complex
prologues may be differently affected by the
distinct prologues (at least regarding its
complexity). This is an interprogram property.
► Property Six B:
This property is similar to the previous one except
that the identical code occurs at the beginning of
the program.
► 7. Property Seven:
This property states that changing the order of
statements may change the complexity of the
program
►8. Property Eight:
This property states that uniformly
changing variable names should not
affect a program’s complexity.
► 9. Property Nine:
This property states that a
combined program may be more
complex than its individual parts.
► Introduction
sciences
► Conclusion
SOFTWARE MEASUREMENT
►A metric is known as an indicator.

They are quantifiable indices used to
compare software products,
processes, or projects or to predict
their outcomes.
► In software engineering we measure
either the size or complexity of an
entity.
COMPLEXITY MEASURES
►A number of metrics has been
proposed for the measurement of
software complexity. However, my
attention is focused on:
 statement count
 cyclomatic number
 Halstead’s metric
 control flow
Statement Count
► Statement Count is the number of
statements in a program.
► For example, let Q be the program
body with two statements:
►Q: y1
x  y+1
► Here statement count is 2
Cyclomatic number
► McCabe’scomplexity measure of a
program is defined to be:
► V = e - n+2p
► wheree is the number of edges in a
program flow graph, n is the number
of nodes, and p the number of
connected components or cycles.
► Forexample: consider the program
below:
►G:
IF x < 0 THEN
IF y < 0 THEN y  -x
ELSE y  x
END
ELSE x  y
END
IF
x<0
THEN
y<0
THEN
ELSE
y-x ELSE
yx
xy
END
END
► For the program given, e=8, n=7,
p=3.
► Substituting these values into the
equation, McCabe’s complexity
measure is:
► V (G) = 8-7+ 2 (3) = 7.
Halstead’s metrics
► To use Halstead’s metrics, we need the following definitions:
► n1 = number of unique or distinct operators
appearing in an implementation.
► n2 = number of unique or distinct operands appearing in an
implementation.
► N1 = total usage of all of the operators appearing in an
implementation.
► N2 = total usage of all the operands appearing in an
implementation.
► Vocabulary: n = n1 + n2
► Length: N = N1 + N2
► For
example, let P be the program
body
►P: yx
► vocabulary can be derived as follows:
►n = n1 + n2 = 1 + 2 = 3.
► length can be derived as follows:
►N = N1 + N2 = 1 + 2 = 3.
Control flow complexity
► Control flow complexity is related to
readability, understandability, effort,
testability, maintainability of a
process.
► Control flow complexities are
determined by control paths (splits),
synchronizations (joins), loops, and
terminating and beginning points.
Thus, Control flow complexity
originated from the concept of
McCabe’s complexity measure.
► For example, a sequential
concatenation is depicted by the
following diagram.
► Also, an AND, OR, XOR join or split is

represented as follows
► Introduction
sciences
► Conclusion
EVALUATION OF WEYUKER’S
PROPERTIES
► I discussed the fact that there were some properties
proposed by Weyuker that were satisfied by
measurements in software engineering.
► Property one:
 Recall: Property one states that there are at least two
programs with differing measures.
 Examples of complexity measures that satisfy this

property are statement count, cyclomatic number,
Halstead’s metric, and control flow.
► Property two:
 Recall: Property two states that there are only a finite
number of programs of the same complexity.
 This property does not make sense because unlike

Weyuker’s proposed language, computer languages like
C#, Java or C++ does not have finitely many identifiers.
 Examples that satisfy this property are statement count

and Halstead metric.
► Property Three:
 Recall: This property states that there are multiple

► Property four:
 Recall: This item expresses the condition that there are
functionally equivalent programs with different
complexities.

► Property five:
 Recall: This property is satisfied for monotonic
measures. It roughly expresses the fact that adding on
to a program makes a more complex program.

► Property six:
 Recall: property six states that code occurring after
different but equally complex prologues may be
differently affected by the distinct prologues (at least
regarding its complexity).
 An example that satisfies this property is Halstead

metric.
► Property seven:
 Recall: this property states that changing the order of
statements may change the complexity of the program.
 An example that satisfies this property is control flow.

► Property eight:
 Recall: This property states that uniformly changing
variable names should not affect a program’s
complexity.

► Property nine:
 Recall: This property states that a combined program
may be more complex than its individual parts.
 An example that satisfies this property is control flow.

► Introduction
sciences
► Conclusion
MEASUREMENT THEORY
► Campbell has two basic laws of
measurement
► Campbell’s first law states that a metric
must measure a relative quantity of an
attribute.
► Given that A, B, C, and D are entities and
that + means combining entities,
Campbell’s second measurement law
requires the following:
 1. If A = B and C > 0, then A + C > B.
 2. If A + D = X, then D + A = X.
 3. If A = B and C = D, then A + C = B + D.
 4. If A = B, C = D, and E = F, then (A + C) + E =
► Introduction
► Whether software measurement
is really measurement in the
physical sciences
► Conclusion
WHETHER SOFTWARE MEASUREMENT IS
REALLY MEASUREMENT IN THE PHYSICAL
SCIENCES
► Weyuker’s property six is not in complete
agreement with measurement in the
Physical Sciences.
► Recall: Weyuker’s property six states that
code occurring after different but equally
complex prologues may be differently
affected by the distinct prologues (at least
regarding its complexity).
► In the Physical Sciences, the complexity is
the same for both P and Q.
► Therefore, joining program R with P and Q
adds the same amount of complexity.
►A good example of measurement in the
physical sciences is the third part of
Campbell's additive principle which states
that If A = B and C = D, then A + C = B + D.
► As we can see, Weyuker’s property six is in
conflict with the third part of Campbell’s
additive principle.
► Thus it is in conflict with Measurement in the
physical sciences.
► Thus, if we accept Weyuker’s properties, we
can see that software measurement does
not have additive properties for all metric.
► Introduction
sciences
► Conclusion
CONCLUSION
►I looked at the foundation for measurement
theory and ask whether software
measurement is measurement in the sense
of measurement in the physical sciences.
► I discussed the fact that there are properties
in software measurement that are not
satisfied in measurement in the physical
sciences.
► Since some properties of software
measurement are not satisfied in
measurement in the physical science, then
one might have to define a different
foundation for software measurement.
► Thus, if we accept Weyuker’s
properties, we can see that software
measurement does not have additive
properties for some metric.
► My research is similar to an earlier
research by Resee (1943).
References
► [1] Jorge Cardoso. “Control flow Complexity
Measurement of Processes and Weyuker’s
Properties,” Preceedings of World Academy
of Science, Engineering and Technology
Volume 8 October 2005 ISSN 1307-6884.
► [2] N. Fenton, “Software Metrics: A rigorous
Approach,” Chapman and Hall, London,
1991.
► [3] N. Fenton, “Software Measurement: A
Necessary Scientific Basis,” IEEE Trans.
Software Eng., 20, 1994, pp. 199-206.
► [4] P.N. Gedela, P. Kosaraju, and A. Melton,
“Measurement Theory Principles in Software
Measurement” May. 2007.
► [5] McCabe, Thomas J. & Butler, Charles W.
"Design Complexity Measurement and
Testing." Communications of the ACM 32, 12
(December 1989): 1415-1425.
► [6] McCabe, Thomas J. & Watson, Arthur H.
"Software Complexity." Crosstalk, Journal of
Defense Software Engineering 7, 12
(December 1994): 5-9.
► [7] Thomas Reese. “The Application of the
theory of Physical Measurement to
Measurement of Psychological Magnitude
with three experiments”. Psychological
Monographs. Vol. 55:3, 251, 1943. pp. 6-20.
► [8] E. J. Weyuker, “Evaluating software
complexity measures,” IEEE Trans. Software
Eng., vol. 14, pp. 1357-1365, Sept. 1988.
► [9] H Zuse, “Software Complexity:
Measures and Methods”, Walter de Gruyter,
Berlin, 1990.
Questions
►Thank You For Your Time

Weyuker Properties

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Weyuker Properties

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WEYUKER PROPERTIES

►A metric is known as an indicator.

► Also, an AND, OR, XOR join or split is

 Examples of complexity measures that satisfy this

 This property does not make sense because unlike

 Examples that satisfy this property are statement count

 Examples of complexity measures that satisfy this

 Examples of complexity measures that satisfy this

 Examples of complexity measures that satisfy this

 An example that satisfies this property is Halstead

 An example that satisfies this property is control flow.

 Examples of complexity measures that satisfy this

 An example that satisfies this property is control flow.

S-ar putea să vă placă și