Exploring the Impacts of Antipatterns on Object‐Oriented, Service‐Oriented, and Mobile‐Oriented Systems
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
ABSTRACT Objective Antipatterns (APs) represent potential issues in software systems stemming from poor design choices, coding practices, and undisciplined development. This systematic literature review analyzes 97 primary studies (PSs) from 2005 to 2024, exploring the impact of APs on Object‐Oriented (OO), Service‐Oriented (SO), and Mobile‐Oriented (MO) systems across various quality attributes. Methods PSs are classified by techniques, datasets, evaluation measures, and tool support. Result Findings highlight the association of APs with increased maintenance costs (27.8%), fault‐proneness (26.8%), change‐proneness (12.3%), and evolution challenges (25.7%). Most studies employ descriptive statistics, regression analysis, and Pearson correlation, with limited datasets and tool support for SO and MO systems compared to OO systems. Intermediate source code representations and program comprehension strategies are commonly used for analysis. Conclusion These findings emphasize the need for further research on the impact of APs, particularly in MO systems, and their negative effects on software quality attributes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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