Advertisement

The introduction and evaluation of object orientation in a company developing real-time embedded systems

  • Colin J Theaker
  • Neil Blackwood
  • Robert Mason
Session 6: Industrial Experiences, Part 1
  • 118 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1780)

Abstract

This paper considers the practical experiences of a commercial company when undertaking the move to an object oriented paradigm, and the impact that the paradigm shift has entailed, both in terms of the product quality, and the process for software development. The context for the work is outlined, in particular identifying the demanding nature of the company's product development.

A significant aspect of the move to object orientation was the selection of appropriate technologies and tools to support the development, and the adaptation of the toolsets to suite the company context. A rigorous evaluation of the move was undertaken as part of an ESSI Process Improvement Experiment—PIOJAVA, and the initial experiences of collecting process and product metrics are described.

Keywords

Object Orientation Java Code Class Metrics Java Software Object Oriented Paradigm 
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. Artisan 1999, http://www.artisansw.com Google Scholar
  2. Boehm BW, Software Engineering Economics, Prentice-Hall 1981.Google Scholar
  3. Constantine L L and Yourdon E, Structured Design, Prentice-Hall, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. Conte S D, Dunsmore H E and Shen V Y, Software Engineering Metrics and Models, Benjamin-Cummings 1986.Google Scholar
  5. Douglass B P, “Real-Time UML—Developing Efficient Objects for Embedded Systems”, Addison Wesley, Object Technology Series 1998, ISBN 0-201-32579-9.Google Scholar
  6. Flowers S, “Software Failure—Management Failure”, John Wiley and Sons 1996, ISBN 047195137.Google Scholar
  7. Jacobson I, Booch G, Rumbaugh, J, “The Unified Software Development Process”, Addison Wesley, Object Technology Series 1999, ISBN 0-201-57169-2.Google Scholar
  8. Jensen R W, A comparison of the Jensen and COCOMO schedule and cost estimation models, Proceedings International Society of Parametric Analysis, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. Krakatau 1999, http://www.powersoftware.com Google Scholar
  10. McCabe T, A Software Complexity Measure, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering Vol 2, No 12, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. Perforce 1999, http://www.perforce.com Google Scholar
  12. Pfleeger S L, Software Engineering: The production of quality Software, Macmillan 1991.Google Scholar
  13. PIOJAVA 1999a, PIOJAVA Experimental Plan, ESSI project report, 1999, http://www.terrafix.co.uk/essi Google Scholar
  14. PIOJAVA 1999b, PIOJAVA Reference Data Report, ESSI project report, 1999 http://www.terrafix.co.uk/essi Google Scholar
  15. Putnam L H, A General Empirical Solution to the Macro Software Sizing and Estimating Problem, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol 4, No 4, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I, Booch G, “The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual”, Addison Wesley, Object Technology Series 1999, ISBN 0-201-30998-X.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin J Theaker
    • 1
  • Neil Blackwood
    • 1
  • Robert Mason
    • 1
  1. 1.Terrafix LimitedTunstallEngland

Personalised recommendations