Towards the Definition of Patterns and Code Smells for Multi-language Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developers often combine multiple programming languages to build large-scale applications. They choose programming languages properly for their tasks at hand instead of solving all of their problems with a single language. Foreign Functions Interface allow code written in one programming language to access features available in another programming language. Multi-language systems benefits from several advantages. However, they also introduce challenges related to the development, comprehension, and maintenance of such systems. Software quality is achieved partly by following good practices---architectural styles, design patterns, idioms---and avoiding bad practices---design anti-patterns and code smells. Yet, a review of the literature shows that there are a few works that study developers' practices among multi-language systems. The heterogeneity of components introduces code smells at the source code level. While design patterns are defined as good solutions to a recurrent problem, code smells are defined as poor design and coding choices that can negatively impact the quality of a software program despite satisfying functional requirements. In this paper, we report four patterns and five code smells related to multi-language systems. Those patterns and code smells were extracted from open-source systems, developers' documentation, and bug reports. We encoded these practices in the form of patterns and code smells in the context of Java Native Interface systems.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".