Open Source Software: A Study of Dynamic Variance of Complexity

DOI : 10.17577/IJERTV4IS020143

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Open Source Software: A Study of Dynamic Variance of Complexity

Kanwaljit Singh,

Department of Computer Application.

ACET. Amritsar, India.

Hardeep Singh, Department of Comp. Sc. & Engg.

GNDU. Amritsar, India.

Abstract: Quality and complexity are closely related in software evolution cycle. Evolution period measures the qualities of the software. Software metrics monitor and manage the quality of software. Oscillation in the complexity reflects disparity in the quality. Complexity is one of the indicators of the software quality. Complexity depends upon the size of class, number of statements used and type of statement used in the software development. Video LAN Client (VLC) media player open source software with its 58 versions and 7-Zip open source compression software with 61 versions are used for the quality analysis. This paper measures the complexity of the open source softwares VLC and 7-Zip. The studies of the software complexity are done with comparative analysis on various factors generated by metric tool SourceMonitor. The overview is to calculate the active variation in complexity when compared with functions, class-size, and statements of VLC with 7-ZIP during evolution cycle.

Keywords: Open source software, structured complexity, metrics, evolution, SourceMonitor, VLC, 7-Zip.

  1. INTRODUCTION

    Open source software (OSS) is freely available with its source code for study, research, download, modify, and share information [14]. Desirable modules are downloaded quickly from code library and adjusted in the source code of the software to improve its quality with less time and at low cost. This paper introduces two OSS; Video LAN Client (VLC) media player and 7-Zip compression software. VLC consists of clients and server to stream videos across the network. VLC is an open source modular design programmed in an object oriented C++. Incomplete, damaged or unfinished videos can be easily run on VLC.

    Fifty eight versions of VLC have been designed since evolution period of 2001 to 2013. Software evolution is the process of developing the software and then frequently renovating it for various reasons. In this paper evolution is a process of improvement, inheriting version and reformation. By the year Feb, 2001 VLC-0.2.0 was released with its properties and complexities. The evolution process starts from the time slot of Feb April 2001. The evolution in appendix-2 defines the enhancement in the software either by altering the code(s) of previous version as per customer requirements and quality satisfaction. The altitude of complexity gets affected with progression in evolution. Software is distinctly substantial if it fulfills the maximum of seven conditions of Lehmanns Law of

    evolution [2]. The study of all the versions are compared and evaluated with respect to meticulous metric tool. The metric tool will generate the result in two parameters, i.e. source code in the versions v/s complexity in the modules.

    7-Zip is an open source file archive, which may be used to compress and encrypt one or more files for various operating systems. 7-Zip is the conqueror of file archiving and compression tools. It sets the standard for both compression ratio and time with its very own 7z compression format. To compress a file, it manages to beat MagicRAR, WinRAR, and WinZip for the best compression ratio, even with its Fastest Compression setting enabled. 7-Zip takes only 25 seconds to compress target files/folders, WinRAR (44 sec), WinZip ( 51 sec), and MagicRAR (159 sec). Multinational banking, IT, and other organizations use 7-Zip software for compressing and encrypting the software files for data transfer and storage. Appendix-1 defines the enhancement in 7-Zip in its evolution cycle.

  2. PROBLEM DEFINITION

    VLC and 7-Zip are open source software with various versions. After the development of one version, another version is ready to release with its own complex properties. This process continues in software evolution course. Each version of software develops with an integration of modules and classes. The statements are the tools used to measure the structure complexity of the software. Difficult and copious statements complicate the modules or classes and inflate the complexity. The quality of the OSS is calculated through complexity value. The organization of elements within the software defines complexity.

    The time gap between release date of 1st version and the final version of software should not be the enlarged. This reduces stability of the software. With the time period of 9 and 13 years more than 58 and 61 versions of VLC and 7- Zip have been developed [8]. 58 times in VLC and 61 times in 7-Zip numerous changes of the software will vibrate the market demand and quality of the software

  3. METHODOLOGY

    To read and study the metrics value of the VLC & 7-Zip software, another OSS is executed called SourceMonitor. SourceMonitor is a metric tool that can calculate 14 metrics of java, C#, C++, VB based software with graphic indicator

    Files

    Lines

    State- ments

    %

    Bnches

    %

    Cmnts

    Class Defs

    Methods/ Class

    Avg Stmnts/ Method

    Max Cmplexty

    Max Depth

    Avg Depth

    Avg Cmplxty

    Functions

    387

    105,153

    35,481

    19

    25.3

    37

    4.5

    8.9

    126

    9

    1.7

    4.21

    1,396

    and filtering techniques to analyse the results [12]. The SourceMonitor (SM) scrutinizes how much code software has and identifies the relative complexity of statements and modules in software. VLC and 7-Zip are programmed in C++, and SM runs the software code at high speed, thousands of lines of code per second. SM has friendly graphic user interface (GUI). SM presents the metrics in form of tables or charts, to measure software in several phases of the development process and save the resultant metrics in checkpoints. SM helps to find out the changes in the software during the cycle of software evolution by using the Lehman Laws of Software Evolution. Table-1 is the result generated by the SourceMonitor with various attributes or metrics used to measure complexity. Selective metrics are used in this paper, as in Appendix 3, 4.

    Table 1: Study of various attributes by SourceMonitor

    • Files: Total number of files measured in the selected package.

    • Lines: Total number of lines in the selected package, without the blank lines at the end of each included file.

    • Statements: Total number of statements in the selected package.

    • % Branches: Statements such as if, else, for, while, goto, break, continue, switch, case, default and return are measured here as a percentage of the total statements.

    • % Comments: Number of total comments divided by total number of lines. Headers and footers, at the beginning and end of files are not taken into consideration.

    • Class Size: Total number of operations and attributes that are encapsulated in method or class.

    • Method per Class: Total number of complex methods in a class.

    • Functions: Total number of functions existing in the selected package.

    • Average statements/method: Total number of statements inside methods in a selected package divided by the number ofmethods in the package.

    • Maximum complexity: Value of the coupling and cohesion of the most complex function in the selected package.

    • Maximum depth: Maximum nested methods are depth in the selected package. At the beginning of each file its value is zero. It must be pointed out that statements at levels 1 to 8 are recorded, while statements at deeper levels are counted depth 9.

    • Average depth: Depth is total number of methods starting from root method to leaf method in the execution path. Average depth of software is sum of depth of all execution paths divided by total number of execution paths.

    • Average complexity: The average value of all complexity values in the selected package

    After measuring the metrics of VLC and 7-Zip software, the paper will perform the comparative analysis of the metrics of two softwares and find that during evolution period which metric(s) follow evolution laws.

  4. RESULT AND ANALYSIS

Various versions of VLC and 7-Zip have been generated during the evolution period. Each version has hundred of packages in it. The individual version of the software is evaluated with SourceMonitor that generates attributes as shown in table-1. The data is generated, collected and analysed through all versions (shown in Appendix 3, 4).

Metric Analysis

VLC

7-Zip

Statement vs ClassSize

– 0.115 (-ve)

0.870 (+ve)

Avg. Complexity vs Function

0.221 (Low)

0.971 (High)

Statement vs Avg. Complexity

0.142 (Low)

0.970 (High)

Function vs Class Size

– 0.084 (-ve)

0.737 (+ve)

Statement vs Functions

0.745 (+ve)

0.965 (+ve)

Class Size vs Avg Complexity

– 0.068 (-ve)

0.798 (+ve)

Statements vs Method per Class

– 0.260 (-ve)

– 0.382 (-ve)

Table-2: Correlation value of metrics in VLC and 7-Zip

In the study comparative analysis of the metrics of VLC and 7-Zip software has been done. Correlation among metrics is revealed in table-2. Using complexity metric, software team has the capability to indicate problems of software, guide software testing, and estimate software maintenance efforts [15]. Formats designed for comparative analysis in this paper are:

  1. Average complexity vs. Functions

    Structure of the functions and their interrelation that are used to avoid statement redundancy describes the complexity of the software. Relational analysis classifies that the level of average complexity fluctuates with amendment in number of functions. The relationship is explained with the help of data collection for VLC and 7- Zip analysis in fig.1 and fig.2. There is a huge gap between complexity and function metrics values in VLC

    and 7-Zip. To recover, complexity value is multiplied by an independent constant value to make it relevant to represent two-dimensional graph of complexity and function.

    At the initial development in VLC, after the rise in functions at initial stage with fall in functions, there is equivalent fall in average complexity. There is fluctuation in function due to which average complexity descends. Where as in 7-ZIP application there is linear rise in functions and calm complexity at initial level. At the mid stage of evolution, there is strong boost in functions, due to which complexity level increases with low growth rate in VLC application. In 7-ZIP there is low density, high wavy shade enhancement in functions during evolution period at mid stage, due to which there is less frequency change in complexity. At the final stage, with the small rise in number of functions in VLC, there is narrow increment in complexity. In case of 7-ZIP application, at final stage with slight fall in number of functions there is increase in complexity. In table-2 the correlation among average complexity and function is positive in both the software but low in VLC and high in 7-Zip.

    Finally there are three parameters found in the relationship among functions and complexity;

    1. Sharp Increase in functions Gentle Rise in complexity.

    2. Aslant increase in functions Tilt Fall in complexity.

    3. Syrupy Rise or Fall in functions Calm complexity.

    12000

  2. Class Size vs Average Complexity

    Class is the core of the object oriented program, and size of a class has mammoth credence on software output. The status of class structure is measured with the variable called complexity. Class size is calculated by the multiplication of method/class and statements/method. An analysis is being done on the relation between class size and the complexity in fig. 3. In VLC and 7-Zip, the complexity metric value is multiplied by an independent constant value to make it equivalent to class size for graph development. In VLC, at the early evolution stages, the complexity reduces as the class size remains same. With decrease in class size, average complexity also reduces. In the middle stage of evolution there is a steep fall in class size. With fall in class size, the complexity increases calmly. At the last mode of evolution, there is constant flow of class size. In constant mode of class size, the complexity reduces. This clarifies that the number of statements used in methods at different class remain same but the format of the statements varies.

    As compare to VLC in fig.3, 7-Zip application in fig.4 has very narrow variation in complexity with rise in evolution. At the early stage with rise in class size, there is rise is complexity. This results in directs relations. At the mid of 7-Zip evolution period, the complexity increases steadily with bit by bit increase in class size. The complexity gets consistent with change in class size. At the last stage, with minor rise in size, there is narrow increase in complexity. Table2 calculates the correlation among class size and

    10000

    8000

    6000

    4000

    2000

    0

    VLC

    Early Stage

    Middle Stage

    Last Stage

    Functions

    AvgCmplx

    average complexity, it is ve in VLC and +ve in 7-Zip software. The various parameters found in the relationship among class size and complexity are:

    1. Sharp Boost in class size – Minor fall in complexity

    2. Fall in class size Angled increase in complexity

    3. Calm in class size In control complexity

  3. Statement vs Average complexity

The instruction processed by compiler is called statement. Set of statements is called method. Program is collection of statements, functions and classes. Set of programs develop

1 4 7 101316192225283134374043464952555

Fig1: Relation among Complexity and Function in VLC

the software. Statements are the core of the software. Line graph explains the relation between number of statement and complexity level. The complexity metric values of

VLC and 7-Zip software are multiplied by different independent constant values to make them equivalent to

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

7-Zip

Early Stage

Mid Stage Last Stage

Avg Complexity

Functions

their corresponding statement metric value.

At the initial evolution development stage of VLC the complexity decreases with increase in number of statements as in fig.5. At middle stage, a sky scraper is generated by number of statements, and a bit increase in complexity.

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61

Fig2: Relation among Complexity and Function in 7-Zip

10000

8000

6000

4000

Initial Stage

Middle Stage

Mid Stage

Early Stage

Last Stage

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

Final stage

2000

0

AvgCmplx

Avg Complexity

Statements

7-Zip

Class_Size

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57

Fig3: Relation among Class-size and Complexity in VLC

90 Last Stage

80

70

60

50 Mid Stage

40 Early Stage

30 Class Size

20 7-Zip Avg Complexity

10

0

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61

Fig4: Relation among Class-size and Complexity in 7-Zip

At the last level, with narrow rise/fall in statements, there is slim rise/fall in complexity. The less number of complicated statements are modified to large number of simple statements. With increase in statements the complexity level increases.

In the 7-Zip application at fig. 6, there is direct relation among statement and average-complexity at initial level of evolution. With increase in statements, the complexity level also increases. At the middle level of evolution the complexity calmly increase with increase in number of statements. At the final stage of evolution there is instant rise in statements, which makes tiny increase in complexity. The correlation calculation results positive in both the software but low in VLC and high in 7-Zip software in table-2.

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61

Fig 6: Statement and Complexity relational analysis in 7-Zip

The various parameters found in the relationship are as follow:

  1. Strong rise in statements Potential rise in complexity

  2. Steady fall in statements – Slow growth in complexity

  3. Slight rise or fall in statements Constant level of complexity

DISCUSSION

Complexity depends upon the structure of functions. The complexity-function analysis of VLC and 7-Zip in fig-1 & 2, recommends that with increase in evolution, there is increase in functions and the with respect to that the complexity level increases because of coupling and cohesions between functions. Class size is total number of methods and attributes in the structure of the class. In case of VLC it is harder to test, maintain and reuse the class-size during evolution cycle. In case of 7-Zip, it is easy to understand the class-size during the evolution cycle. A team with less number of members will generate fewer errors as compare team with more team members. In statement-complexity analysis of VLC and 7-Zip it is found that at the initial stage because of less number of statements the complexity level was low, as the statements increases,

400000

350000

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

VLC

Initial Stage

Last Stage

Middle Stage

AvgCmpx

Statements

the probability of complexity increases.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we studied the dynamic variability of complexity on evolution of long lived open source programs VLC and 7-Zip. In the study we investigate the implementation of Lehmans Law while evolution to the software. While taking Average Complexity as a major metric and function, statements and class size as minor metrics three various comparative analysis were done between VLC and 7-Zip. On the basis of analysis Lehmans Law is studied. In table-3 we studied that among

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57

Fig 5: Statement and Complexity relational analysis in VLC

eight Lehmans law for software evolution at least six are applicable for VLC where as all eight are applicable for 7- Zip.

Numerically 79% Laws applicable for VLC and 97% are applicable for 7-Zip. This difference of percentage shows that the occurrence of complexity is more in VLC as compare to 7-Zip software.

REFERENCES

S. No.

Brief Name

Law

VLC

7-Zip

Law-I

Continuing

Change

System continually adapted else they

become less satisfactory

Y

Y

Law-II

Increasing Complexity

As an system evolved its complexity increases-unless work is done to

maintain or reduce it

N

Y

Law-III

Self Regulation.

System evolution

regulating

process

is

self

Y

Y

Law-IV

Observation of

Organizational Stability

Global activity rate on a system does not change.

Y

Y

Law-V

Conservation of Familiarity

Developer understand the system

behavior. Constant or decline in system growth

Y/N

Y

Law-VI

Continuing

Growth

Content of system continually

increase to maintain user satisfaction.

Y

Y

Law-VII

Declining

Quality

System will decline unless they are

rigorously maintained.

Y

Y

Law-VIII

Feedback

System

Role of user feedback in providing

momentum for future evolution.

Y

Y

  1. Jack Zhang, Shikhar Sagar, Emad Shihab, The Evolution of Mobile Apps: An Exploratory Study. Proceeding of the 2013 International Workshop on Software Development Lifecycle for Mobile. Pages 1-8. ACM New York, USA, 2013.

  2. M.M. Lehman, Rules and Tools for Software Evolution Planning and Management, Journal, Annals of Software Engineering. Vol. 11, Issue 1. November 2001. NJ, USA.

  3. Andrea Capiluppi, Maurizio Morisio, Juan F Ramil, The Evolution of Source Folder Structure in actively evolved Open Source Systems. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics (METRICS04). IEEE

  4. Rajiv D Banker, Srikant M Datar, Software Complexity and Maintainability. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, December 4-6, 1989, Boston, Massachusetts.

  5. E Da Wei, The Software Complexity Model and Metrics for Object-Oriented IEEE 2007.

  6. Ayman Madi, Oussama Kassem Zein and S. Kadry, On the Improvement of Cyclomatic Complexity Metric. International Journal of Software Engineering and its Applications. Vol.7, No. 2, March 2013.

  7. N. Nagappan, B. Murphy, V. R. Basili, The Influence of Organizational Structure on Software Quality: An Empirical Case Study. International Conference on Software Engineering-ICSE, pp: 521-539, May, 2008. Germany.

  8. C. Wohlin, B. Lennselius and C. Vrana, "Software Metrics: Structure and Some New Research Results", Proceedings Milcomp, pp. 221-226, London, United Kingdom, 1986.

  9. Kanika Raheja, R. Tekchandani, An Emerging Approach towards Code Clone Detection: Metric Based Approach on Byte Code. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Sc. And Software Engg., Vol. 3, Issue. 5 May 2013. Pg. 881-888

  10. Carlos Lopez, E. Manso, Y. Crespo, The identification of anomalous code measures with conditioned interval metrics. 13th TOOLS Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object- Oriented Software Engineering {(QAOOSE} 2010) 2010. Malaga, Spain.

  11. Gurdev Singh, Dilbag Singh, Vikram Singh, A study of Software Metrics. IJCEM International Journal of Computational Engg. & Management. Vol. 11, January, 2011

  12. Capiluppi A., Ramil J.F. (2004), Studying the evolution of open source systems at different levels of granularity: two case studies, Proceeding on the 7th IEEE International Workshop of Principles of Software Evolution, 2004, pp 113 118

  13. M. Zhang, N. Baddoo, Performance Comparison of Software Complexity Metrics in an Open Source Project. Springer 2007, pg. 160-174

  14. Nicholas Drouin, Mourad Badri, Investigating the Applcability of the Laws of Software Evolution: A Metrics Based Study Springer, 2013, Pg: 174-189. Berlin.

  15. Nicholas Drouin, Mourad Badri, Fadel Toure, Analyzing Software Quality Evolution using Metrics: An Empirical Study on Open Source Software. Jouranal of Software, Vol. 8 No. 10 Oct. 2013.

Appendix-1 Evolution table of VLC

Sr. No

Version

Date

Sr. No

Version

Date

Sr. No

Version

Date

1

vlc-0.1.99

27 Aug 2000

23

vlc-0.6.1

31 July 2003

45

vlc-1.0.0

06 July 2009

2

vlc-0.2.0

02 Feb 2001

24

vlc-0.6.2

14 Aug 2003

46

vlc-1.0.1

27-july-2009

3

vlc-0.2.60

14 Feb 2001

25

vlc-0.7.0

03 Jan 2004

47

vlc-1.0.2

22 Sept 2009

4

vlc-0.2.70

09 April 2001

26

vlc-0.7.1

02 March 2004

48

vlc-1.1.0

22 June 2010

5

vlc-0.2.70-1

09 April 2001

27

vlc-0.7.2

21 May 2004

49

vlc-1.1.1

21 July 2010

6

vlc-0.2.80

05 June 2001

28

vlc-0.8.0

3 Nov 2004

50

vlc-1.1.2

29 July 2010

7

vlc-0.2.80-1

28 July 2001

29

vlc-0.8.1

14 Nov 2004

51

vlc-1.1.3

18 Aug 2010

8

vlc-0.2.90

10 Oct 2001

30

vlc-0.8.2

25 Jun 2005

52

vlc-1.1.4

27 Aug 2010

9

vlc-0.3.0

09 Oct 2001

31

vlc-0.8.4

26 Nov 2005

53

vlc-1.1.5

13 Nov 2010

10

vlc-0.3.1

06 Dec 2001

32

vlc-0.8.5

6 May 2006

54

vlc-1.1.6

24 Jan 2011

11

vlc-0.4.0

23 May 2002

33

vlc-0.8.6

10 Dec 2006

55

vlc-1.1.7

31 Jan 2011

12

vlc-0.4.1

04 June 2002

34

vlc-0.8.6b

18 April 2007

56

vlc-1.1.8

23 March 2011

13

vlc-0.4.2

10 July 2002

35

vlc-0.8.6c

16 June 2007

57

vlc-1.1.9

12 April 2011

14

vlc-0.4.3

26 July 2002

36

vlc-0.9.0

24 Aug 2008

58

vlc_2.0.0

17 Feb 2012

15

vlc-0.4.4

11 Aug 2002

37

vlc-0.9.1

25 Aug 2008

59

vlc_2.0.1

16 March 2012

16

vlc-0.4.5

14 Oct 2002

38

vlc-0.9.2

14 Sept 2008

60

vlc_2.0.2

27 June 2012

17

vlc-0.4.6

14 Nov 2002

39

vlc-0.9.3

26 Sept 2008

61

vlc_2.0.3

18 July 2012

18

vlc-0.5.0

03 Feb 2003

40

vlc-0.9.4

7 Oct 2008

62

vlc_2.0.4

17 Oct 2012

19

vlc-0.5.1

17 Feb 2003

41

vlc-0.9.5

24 Oct 2008

63

vlc_2.0.5

14 Dec 2012

20

vlc-0.5.2

11 March 2003

42

vlc-0.9.6

5 Nov 2008

64

vlc_2.0.6

7 April 2013

21

vlc-0.5.3

08 April 2003

43

vlc-0.9.8a

3 Dec 2008

65

vlc_2.0.7

26 May 2013

22

vlc-0.6.0

23 June 2003

44

vlc-0.9.9

29 March 2009

Appendix-2: Evolution table of 7-Zip

Sr No

Version

Date

Sr. No.

Ver-sion

Date

Sr. No.

Version

Date

1

4.13 beta

12/14/2004

22

4.45 beta

4/17/2007

43

9.04 beta

5/30/2009

2

4.14 beta

1/11/2005

23

4.46 beta

5/25/2007

44

9.06 beta

8/17/2009

3

4.15 beta

1/25/2005

24

4.47 beta

5/27/2007

45

9.07 beta

8/27/2009

4

4.16 beta

3/29/2005

25

4.48 beta

6/26/2007

46

9.09 beta

12/12/2009

5

4.17 beta

4/18/2005

26

4.49 beta

7/11/2007

47

9.10 beta

12/22/2009

6

4.18 beta

4/19/2005

27

4.50 beta

7/24/2007

48

9.11 beta

3/15/2010

7

4.19 beta

5/21/2005

28

4.51 beta

7/25/2007

49

9.12 beta

3/24/2010

8

4.2

5/30/2005

29

4.52 beta

8/3/2007

50

9.13 beta

4/15/2010

9

4.23

6/29/2005

30

4.53 beta

8/27/2007

51

9.14 beta

6/4/2010

10

4.24 beta

7/6/2005

31

4.54 beta/p>

9/4/2007

52

9.15 beta

6/20/2010

11

4.25 beta

7/31/2005

32

4.55 beta

9/5/2007

53

9.16 beta

9/8/2010

12

4.26 beta

8/5/2005

33

4.56 beta

10/24/2007

54

9.17 beta

10/4/2010

13

4.27 beta

9/21/2005

34

4.57

12/6/2007

55

9.18 beta

11/2/2010

14

4.28 beta

9/27/2005

35

4.58 beta

5/5/2008

56

9.19 beta

11/11/2010

15

4.29 beta

9/28/2005

36

4.59 beta

8/13/2008

57

9.2

11/18/2010

16

4.30 beta

11/18/2005

37

4.60 beta

8/19/2008

58

9.21 beta

4/11/2011

17

4.31

12/4/2005

38

4.61 beta

11/23/2008

59

9.22 beta

4/18/2011

18

4.32

12/9/2005

39

4.62

12/2/2008

60

9.23 alpha

6/7/2011

19

4.42

5/14/2006

40

4.63

12/31/2008

61

9.25 alpha

9/16/2011

20

4.43 beta

9/15/2006

41

4.64

1/3/2009

62

9.30 alpha

10/26/2012

21

4.44 beta

1/20/2007

42

4.65

2/3/2009

63

9.32 alpha

12/1/2013

Analyisi-3 : 7-Zip Data Analysis

Sr.

No.

Statments

Class

Defs

Methods

/Class

AvgStmts

/Method

Class

Size

Avg

Cmplxity

Functions

1

53649

632

8.32

8.2

68.2

3.09

926

2

54467

636

8.42

8.2

69.0

3.09

940

3

54706

637

8.41

8.2

69.0

3.1

947

4

54832

637

8.41

8.2

68.9

3.11

955

5

55726

649

8.5

8.3

70.6

3.12

963

6

62714

738

8.6

8.7

74.8

3.19

1033

7

62693

737

8.61

8.7

74.9

3.2

1029

8

62699

737

8.61

8.7

74.9

3.2

1029

9

64176

745

8.75

8.6

75.3

3.18

1076

10

64233

745

8.75

8.6

75.3

3.18

1079

11

64243

746

8.74

8.6

75.2

3.18

1080

12

63564

743

8.72

8.5

74.1

3.17

1075

13

64204

746

8.75

8.6

75.3

3.18

1084

14

64251

747

8.76

8.6

75.3

3.18

1084

15

65349

761

8.73

8.6

75.1

3.19

1089

16

65680

763

8.8

8.6

75.7

3.19

1090

17

65757

764

8.79

8.6

75.6

3.19

1093

18

65757

764

8.79

8.6

75.6

3.19

1093

19

66812

772

8.83

8.7

76.8

3.21

1106

20

66807

772

8.82

8.7

76.7

3.21

1108

21

66811

772

8.82

8.7

76.7

3.21

1108

22

69414

816

8.69

8.6

74.7

3.2

1130

23

66034

754

8.66

8.6

74.5

3.22

1128

24

65245

749

8.51

8.6

73.2

3.23

1113

25

65363

747

8.57

8.6

73.7

3.22

1115

26

65365

747

8.57

8.6

73.7

3.22

1115

27

65539

752

8.59

8.5

73.0

3.22

1121

28

66361

763

8.59

8.6

73.9

3.23

1141

29

65919

758

8.65

8.6

74.4

3.23

1145

30

65919

758

8.65

8.6

74.4

3.23

1145

Sr.

No.

Statments

Class

Defs

Methods

/Class

AvgStmts

/Method

Class

Size

Avg

Cmplxity

Functions

31

66409

763

8.67

8.6

74.6

3.24

1156

32

66368

767

8.52

8.7

74.1

3.27

1166

33

66562

768

8.53

8.7

74.2

3.27

1168

34

66569

768

8.53

8.7

74.2

3.27

1168

35

66637

768

8.54

8.7

74.3

3.27

1172

36

66641

768

8.54

8.7

74.3

3.27

1172

37

65527

756

8.51

8.7

74.0

3.25

1181

38

70277

822

8.29

8.9

73.8

3.3

1262

39

70256

822

8.29

8.9

73.8

3.3

1265

40

70457

824

8.26

8.9

73.5

3.3

1269

41

70460

824

8.26

8.9

73.5

3.3

1269

42

70473

826

8.26

8.9

73.5

3.3

1270

43

70473

826

8.26

8.9

73.5

3.3

1270

44

70503

826

8.27

8.9

73.6

3.3

1269

45

74979

868

8.28

9.2

76.2

3.36

1315

46

76939

891

8.41

9.2

77.4

3.34

1308

47

77087

893

8.39

9.2

77.2

3.35

1310

48

77113

895

8.34

9.2

76.7

3.36

1315

49

77113

895

8.34

9.2

76.7

3.36

1315

50

77233

893

8.35

9.2

76.8

3.36

1336

51

77244

893

8.36

9.2

76.9

3.36

1336

52

77433

893

8.37

9.2

77.0

3.36

1338

53

78057

899

8.39

9.3

78.0

3.37

1346

54

78055

899

8.39

9.3

78.0

3.37

1346

55

78202

900

8.39

9.3

78.0

3.37

1346

56

78396

893

8.39

9.3

78.0

3.38

1350

57

80507

905

8.48

9.5

80.6

3.42

1362

58

80477

903

8.49

9.5

80.7

3.43

1359

59

80621

903

8.49

9.5

80.7

3.44

1360

60

82282

935

8.45

9.6

81.1

3.45

1347

61

82348

936

8.45

9.6

81.1

3.45

1347

Analysis-4 VLC Data Analysis

Sr No

.

Statemnts

Class Defs

Methods

/Class

Avg Stmts

/Method

Class Size

Avg Cmplxty

Functions

Sr No

.

Statemnts

Class Defs

Methods

/Class

Avg Stmts

/Method

Class Size

Avg Cmplxty

Functions

1

20407

16

5

9

40

3

720

30

327316

1597

8

8

64

2

8304

2

35481

37

5

9

40

2

1396

31

327696

1596

8

8

64

2

8320

3

24440

19

5

9

40

2

935

32

327118

1596

8

8

64

2

8333

4

32677

44

8

7

55

2

1182

33

327294

1594

8

8

64

2

8324

5

24440

19

5

9

40

2

935

34

326946

1594

8

8

64

2

8324

6

44854

80

8

7

58

2

1658

35

326572

1595

8

8

64

2

8325

7

45952

57

9

7

56

2

1560

36

326617

1595

8

8

64

2

8309

8

46328

57

9

7

56

2

1558

37

327033

1595

8

8

64

2

8311

9

50358

66

9

7

57

2

1687

38

326899

1595

8

8

64

2

8359

10

50921

66

9

7

57

2

1696

39

341363

1693

7

8

61

2

9200

11

51662

66

9

7

57

2

1710

40

343463

1707

7

8

61

2

9228

12

51905

67

9

6

59

2

1710

41

339849

1711

7

8

61

2

9337

13

51503

67

9

6

59

2

1700

42

333769

2047

7

8

55

2

9581

14

55894

76

11

8

83

2

1823

43

334595

2047

7

8

55

2

9603

15

58053

77

11

8

83

2

1909

44

334881

2048

7

8

55

2

9603

16

118561

253

10

9

85

2

2690

45

333793

2048

7

8

55

2

9593

17

120155

258

10

9

87

2

2716

46

333935

2048

7

8

55

2

9593

18

105325

266

10

9

87

2

2791

47

334029

2048

7

8

55

2

9594

19

142414

329

9

9

82

2

3106

48

334495

2048

7

8

55

2

9594

20

158881

409

9

9

82

2

3220

49

334419

2048

7

8

55

2

9592

21

176169

402

9

9

84

1

3418

50

335196

2051

7

8

55

2

9607

22

175863

407

9

9

85

1

3389

51

335229

2051

7

8

55

2

9617

23

182272

488

9

9

83

1

3355

52

349089

2118

7

8

52

2

11170

24

207721

635

8

8

62

2

3647

53

351390

2119

7

8

53

2

11209

25

219210

695

8

8

61

2

3886

54

352553

2119

7

8

53

2

11211

26

235789

694

7

8

54

2

4498

55

354039

2120

7

8

53

2

11236

27

236551

697

7

8

54

2

4516

56

354739

2120

7

8

53

2

11236

28

359436

1337

7

8

61

2

6301

57

355094

2123

7

8

53

2

11241

29

347779

1382

8

8

64

2

6385

58

354995

2123

7

8

53

2

11241

Leave a Reply