1. Dehaghani, S.M.H., Hajrahimi, N.: Which factors affect software projects maintenance cost more? Acta Inf. Med. Acad. Med. Sci. Bosnia Herzegovina21(1), 63–72 (2013)

   Google Scholar 

2. Koskinen, J.: Software maintenance costs. Information Technology Research Institute, University of Jyvaskyla, Tech. rep. (2003)

   Google Scholar 

3. Singer, J., Lethbridge, T., Vinson, N.: An examination of software engineering work practices. In: CASCON High Impact Papers, pp. 174–188. IBM Corp. (2010)

   Google Scholar 

4. Etzkorn, L.H., Davis, C.G., Bowen, L.L.: The language of comments in computer software: a sublanguage of english. J. Pragmatics33(11), 1731–1756 (2001). (Elsevier)

   Article  Google Scholar 

5. Abebe, S.L., Haiduc, S., Marcus, A., Tonella, P., Antoniol, G.: Analyzing the evolution of the source code vocabulary. In: European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (ESMR), pp. 189–198. IEEE, New York (2009)

   Google Scholar 

6. Stroustrup, B., Sutter, H.: C++ core guidelines.http://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines. Last Accessed 1 Aug 2019

7. Github.https://github.com/

8. Corazza, A., Maggio, V., Scanniello, G.: Coherence of comments and method implementations: a dataset and an empirical investigation. Software Qual. J.26(2), 751–777 (2018)

   Article  Google Scholar 

9. de Souza, S.C.B., Anquetil, N., de Oliveira, K.M.: A study of the documentation essential to software maintenance. In: International Conference on Design of Communication, pp. 68–75. ACM, New York (2005)

   Google Scholar 

10. Aman, H., Amasaki, S., Yokogawa, T., Kawahara, M.: Empirical analysis of words in comments written for java methods. In: Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 375–379. IEEE, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

11. Padioleau, Y., Tan, L., Zhou, Y.: Listening to programmers taxonomies and characteristics of comments in operating system code. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 331–341. IEEE, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

12. Haouari, D., Sahraoui, H., Langlais, P.: How good is your comment? a study of comments in Java programs. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), pp. 137–146. IEEE, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

13. Steidl, D., Hummel, B., Juergens, E.: Quality analysis of source code comments. In: International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), pp. 83–92. IEEE, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

14. Tan, L., Yuan, D., Krishna, G., Zhou, Y.: icomment: bugs or bad comments? In: Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Operating Systems Review (SIGOPS), pp. 145–158. ACM, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

15. Miller, E.: An introduction to the resource description framework. Bull. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol.25(1), 15–19 (1998). (Wiley Online Library)

    Article MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

16. Prud, E., Seaborne, A., et al.: SPARQL query language for RDF (2006)

    Google Scholar 

17. Codeproject.https://www.codeproject.com/

18. Begel, A., Zimmermann, T.: Analyze this! 145 questions for data scientists in software engineering. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 12–23. ACM, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

19. Sillito, J., Murphy, G.C., De Volder, K.: Asking and answering questions during a programming change task. IEEE Trans. Software Eng.34(4), 434–451 (2008). (IEEE)

    Article  Google Scholar 

20. Majumdar, S., Shakti, P., Das, P.P., Ghosh, S.: Smartkt: a search framework to assist program comprehension using smart knowledge transfer. In: International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS), pp. 97–108. IEEE, New York (2019)

    Google Scholar 

21. Pascarella, L., Bacchelli, A.: Classifying code comments in java open-source software systems. In: International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp. 227–237. IEEE, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

22. Tan, L., Yuan, D., Zhou, Y.: Hotcomments: how to make program comments more useful? In: Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (SIGPLAN), pp. 20–27. ACM, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

23. Howden, W.E.: Comments analysis and programming errors. IEEE Trans. Software Eng.16(1), 72–81 (1990). (IEEE)

    Article  Google Scholar 

24. Krancher, O., Dibbern, J.: Knowledge in software-maintenance outsourcing projects: beyond integration of business and technical knowledge. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4406–4415. IEEE, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

25. Lattner, C., Adve, V.: The llvm compiler framework and infrastructure tutorial. In: International Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing (LCPC), pp. 15–16. Springer, Berlin (2004)

    Google Scholar 

26. De Marneffe, M.C., Manning, C.D.: The Stanford typed dependencies representation. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation, pp. 1–8. Association for Computational Linguistics (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references