复现、扩展和分析命名实验
Reproducing, Extending, and Analyzing Naming Experiments
AI总结：
本研究复现并扩展了关于开发者命名选择的实验，通过方法论变化复现原研究，验证了名称多样性、两开发者选同名的低概率及经验丰富开发者使用更长名称等结论，并通过新分析将名称概念分为通用、替代和可选三类，证明了显式使用原始模型指导命名能生成更好名称。
摘要：
命名在软件开发中非常重要，因为名称通常是传达代码意图的唯一载体。最近一项关于开发者如何选择名称的研究收集了不同开发者为相同对象给出的名称。这使得研究这些名称的多样性和结构成为可能，并构建了名称创建模型。我们在三个独立实验中复现了该研究的不同部分。重要的是，我们采用了方法论上的变化，而不是力求精确复现。当相同结果时，这通过证明结果不依赖于方法论，从而增强了对其有效性的信心。我们的结果确实证实了原始研究关于名称多样性、两个开发者选择相同名称的概率低以及经验丰富的开发者往往使用比无经验学生稍长的名称的发现。我们通过对名称进行新分析来解释名称多样性，将将名称中代表的概念分类为通用（达成一致）、替代（反映对某主题的不同观点）或可选（反映是否包含此概念的不同意见）。这种分类为关于命名决策中涉及的考虑因素的新研究方向提供了可能。我们还表明，明确使用原始研究中提出的模型来指导命名名称，会导致更好的名称创建，，仅要求参与者使用更长、更详细的名称的简单方法不会。
英文摘要：
Naming is very important in software development, as names are often the only vehicle of meaning about what the code is intended to do. A recent study on how developers choose names collected the names given by different developers for the same objects. This enabled a study of these names' diversity and structure, and the construction of a model of how names are created. We reproduce different parts of this study in three independent experiments. Importantly, we employ methodological variations rather than striving of an exact replication. When the same results are obtained this then boosts our confidence in their validity by demonstrating that they do not depend on the methodology. Our results indeed corroborate those of the original study in terms of the diversity of names, the low probability of two developers choosing the same name, and the finding that experienced developers tend to use slightly longer names than inexperienced students. We explain name diversity by performing a new analysis of the names, classifying the concepts represented in them as universal (agreed upon), alternative (reflecting divergent views on a topic), or optional (reflecting divergent opinions on whether to include this concept at all). This classification enables new research directions concerning the considerations involved in naming decisions. We also show that explicitly using the model proposed in the original study to guide naming leads to the creation of better names, whereas the simpler approach of just asking participants to use longer and more detailed names does not.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
