An empirical study of code smells in JavaScript projects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
JavaScript is a powerful scripting programming language that has gained a lot of attention this past decade. Initially used exclusively for client-side web development, it has evolved to become one of the most popular programming languages, with developers now using it for both client-side and server-side application development. Similar to applications written in other programming languages, JavaScript applications contain code smells, which are poor design choices that can negatively impact the quality of an application. In this paper, we investigate code smells in JavaScript server-side applications with the aim to understand how they impact the fault-proneness of applications. We detect 12 types of code smells in 537 releases of five popular JavaScript applications (i.e., express, grunt, bower, less.js, and request) and perform survival analysis, comparing the time until a fault occurrence, in files containing code smells and files without code smells. Results show that (1) on average, files without code smells have hazard rates 65% lower than files with code smells. (2) Among the studied smells, “Variable Re-assign” and “Assignment In Conditional statements” code smells have the highest hazard rates. Additionally, we conduct a survey with 1,484 JavaScript developers, to understand the perception of developers towards our studied code smells. We found that developers consider “Nested Callbacks”, “Variable Re-assign” and “Long Parameter List” code smells to be serious design problems that hinder the maintainability and reliability of applications. This assessment is in line with the findings of our quantitative analysis. Overall, code smells affect negatively the quality of JavaScript applications and developers should consider tracking and removing them early on before the release of applications to the public.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it