Advertisement

OOIS’97 pp 7-17 | Cite as

Complexity and Maintenance: A Comparative Study of Object-Oriented and Structured Methodologies

  • Richard J. Dick Whiddett
  • Michael A. Bailey
Conference paper

Abstract

It has been suggested that using Object-Oriented methods instead of traditional Structured Methods may reduce the cost of maintenance of an information system. This study evaluates the relative increase in complexity of systems designs when they are subjected to a change in specifications. It was found that overall, the object-oriented system underwent a smaller increase in complexity, and it may therefore be easier to maintain than the structured system.

Keywords

Class Diagram Customer Class Entity Relationship Inheritance Hierarchy Structure Methodology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Meyer, B. Towards a two dimensional programming environment. In Readings in Artificial Intelligence (p. 178 ). Palo Alto: Tioga, 1981Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henry, S. & Humphrey, M. Comparison of an object oriented programming language to a procedural programming language for effectiveness in program maintenance. Journal of Object_Oriented Programming. 6, (3). 1993 pp. 41–49.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fichman, R.G., & Kemerer, C.F. Object-oriented and conventional analysis and design methodologies: Comparison and critique. IEEE Computer. October, 1992 pp. 22–39.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whiddett, R.J., Dasari, S. & Woodfield, T. Comparisons of Development Methodologies: Study of Object-oriented and Structured Analysis Techniques. N.ZJ. of Computing, 6. 1, 1995 pp. 107–114.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Booch, G. Object-oriented analysis and design with applications. (2nd ed.) Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. 1994Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yourdon, E. Modern Structured Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1989Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, R.E. & Foote, B. Designing Reusable Classes, J. Object-oriented Programming, 1.2 1988 pp. 22–35Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilfs-Brock, R.J., Wilkerson, B. & Wiener, L. Designing Object-Oriented Software. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1990Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chidamber, S.R., & Kemerer, C.F. Towards a metrics suite for object oriented design. In Proceedings 6th ACM Conference of Object Oriented Programming, Systems, Language, and Applications (OOPSLA) pp. 197–211. Phoenix: ACM. 1991Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chidamber, S.R., & Kemerer, C.F. A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 20, (6). June, 1994 pp. 476–493.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCabe, T.J. A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering. SE-2, (4). December, 1976 pp. 308–320.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bailey, M.A. Complexity And Maintenance: A Comparative Study Of Object-Oriented And Structured Methodologies MBS Thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, N.Z. 1997Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharble, R.C. & Cohen, S.S. The object-oriented brewery: A comparison of two object-oriented development methods. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. 18, (2). April, 1993 pp. 60–73.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCabe, T.J., & Schulmeyer, G.G. System testing aided by structured analysis (A practical experience). In T.J. McCabe (ed.), Structured Testing (pp. 51–56 ). Silver Spring: IEEE Computer Society Press. 1983Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard J. Dick Whiddett
    • 1
  • Michael A. Bailey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations