Abstract
Use of structuring mechanisms (such as modularisation) is widely believed to be one of the key ways to improve software quality. Structuring is considered to be at least as important for specification documents as for source code, since it is assumed to improve comprehensibility. Yet, as with most widely held assumptions in software engineering, there is little empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. Also, even if structuring can be shown to be a good thing, we do not know how much structuring is somehow optimal. One of the more popular formal specification languages, Z, encourages structuring through its schema calculus. A controlled experiment is described in which two hypotheses about the effects of structure on the comprehensibility of Z specifications are tested. Evidence was found that structuring a specification into schemas of about 20 lines long significantly improved comprehensibility over a monolithic specification. However, there seems to be no perceived advantage in breaking down the schemas into much smaller components. The experiment can be fully replicated.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
