Are scripting languages really different?

Scripting languages such as Python, Perl, Ruby and PHP are increasingly important in new software systems as web technology becomes a dominant force. These languages are often spoken of as having different properties, in particular with respect to cloning, and the question arises whether the observations made based on traditional languages also apply to them. In this paper we present a first experiment in measuring the cloning properties of open source software systems written in the Python scripting language using the NiCad clone detector. We compare our results for Python with previous observations of C, C#, and Java, and discover that perhaps scripting languages are not so different after all.

[1]  Chanchal Kumar Roy,et al.  An Empirical Study of Function Clones in Open Source Software , 2008, 2008 15th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering.

[2]  Chanchal K. Roy,et al.  A Survey on Software Clone Detection Research , 2007 .

[3]  Michael W. Godfrey,et al.  Cloning by accident: an empirical study of source code cloning across software systems , 2005, 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005..

[4]  Miryung Kim,et al.  An empirical study of code clone genealogies , 2005, ESEC/FSE-13.

[5]  Stéphane Ducasse,et al.  Insights into system-wide code duplication , 2004, 11th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering.

[6]  Elmar Jürgens,et al.  Do code clones matter? , 2009, 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering.

[7]  Chanchal Kumar Roy,et al.  Detection and analysis of near-miss software clones , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance.

[8]  Giuliano Antoniol,et al.  Analyzing cloning evolution in the Linux kernel , 2002, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[9]  Chanchal Kumar Roy,et al.  A Mutation/Injection-Based Automatic Framework for Evaluating Code Clone Detection Tools , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation Workshops.

[10]  Jens Krinke,et al.  A Study of Consistent and Inconsistent Changes to Code Clones , 2007, 14th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE 2007).

[11]  Chanchal Kumar Roy,et al.  Comparison and evaluation of code clone detection techniques and tools: A qualitative approach , 2009, Sci. Comput. Program..

[12]  Giuliano Antoniol,et al.  Comparison and Evaluation of Clone Detection Tools , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[13]  Peter E. Bulychev,et al.  Duplicate code detection using anti-unification , 2008 .

[14]  Shinji Kusumoto,et al.  Gemini: maintenance support environment based on code clone analysis , 2002, Proceedings Eighth IEEE Symposium on Software Metrics.

[15]  Chanchal Kumar Roy,et al.  Near-miss function clones in open source software : an empirical study , 2009 .

[16]  Michael W. Godfrey,et al.  “Cloning considered harmful” considered harmful: patterns of cloning in software , 2008, Empirical Software Engineering.

[17]  Michael W. Godfrey,et al.  Toward a Taxonomy of Clones in Source Code: A Case Study , 2003 .

[18]  Chanchal Kumar Roy,et al.  NICAD: Accurate Detection of Near-Miss Intentional Clones Using Flexible Pretty-Printing and Code Normalization , 2008, 2008 16th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension.

[19]  P. Bulychev.  An evaluation of duplicate code detection using anti-unification , 2009 .

[20]  Lerina Aversano,et al.  How Clones are Maintained: An Empirical Study , 2007, 11th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR'07).

[21]  Akito Monden,et al.  Software Analysis by Code Clones in Open Source Software , 2005, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[22]  Stan Jarzabek,et al.  An investigation of cloning in web applications , 2005, WWW '05.