Mining revision histories to detect cross-language clones without intermediates
ASE 2016 - Proceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Page: 696-701
2016
- 19Citations
- 126Usage
- 32Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations19
- Citation Indexes19
- 19
- CrossRef9
- Usage126
- Downloads112
- Abstract Views14
- Captures32
- Readers32
- 32
Conference Paper Description
To attract more users on different platforms, many projects release their versions in multiple programming languages (e.g., Java and C#). They typically have many code snippets that implement similar functionalities, i.e., cross-language clones. Programmers often need to track and modify crosslanguage clones consistently to maintain similar functionalities across different language implementations. In literature, researchers have proposed approaches to detect crosslanguage clones, mostly for languages that share a common intermediate language (such as the .NET language family) so that techniques for detecting single-language clones can be applied. As a result, those approaches cannot detect cross-language clones for many projects that are not implemented in a .NET language. To overcome the limitation, in this paper, we propose a novel approach, CLCMiner, that detects cross-language clones automatically without the need of an intermediate language. Our approach mines such clones from revision histories, which reect how programmers maintain cross-language clones in practice. We have implemented a prototype tool for our approach and conducted an evaluation on five open source projects that have versions in Java and C#. The results show that CLCMiner achieves high accuracy and point to promising future work.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84989187430&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2970276.2970363; https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2970276.2970363; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/3438; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4439&context=sis_research
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know