The structure and value of modularity in software design

By K. Sullivan, W. Griswold, Yuanfang Cai, B. Hallen. ESEC/FSE-9, 2001

442 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Science Applications, Finance, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1bc13b40746ccc95967746b73e11d837e3425154

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Science Applications

1. Tyson R. Browning
2. Carliss Y. Baldwin
3. Alan MacCormack
4. John Rusnak
5. Damien Pollet
6. Stéphane Ducasse
7. Siobhan O’Mahony
8. Fiona E. Murray

In Finance

1. Tyson R. Browning
2. Damien Pollet
3. Stéphane Ducasse
4. Carliss Y. Baldwin

In Strategy and Management

1. Alan MacCormack
2. Tyson R. Browning
3. Damien Pollet
4. Stéphane Ducasse
5. Carliss Y. Baldwin
6. John Rusnak
7. Kevin J. Boudreau
8. Eric von Hippel

Citations in the corpus

• CoCoMIC: Code Completion by Jointly Modeling In-file and Cross-file Context (2022, unknown): “Modular programming (Parnas, 1972; Parnas et al., 1985; Sullivan et al., 2001) is a software design strategy that divides the complex software functionality into several independent, interchangeable components ( e.g., files, classes, and functions), such that each component implements only one…”
• Using dependency models to manage complex software architecture (2005, background): “Highly coupled systems, in which modules have unnecessary dependencies, are hard to work with because modules cannot be understood easily in isolation, and changes or extensions to functionality cannot be contained.”
• Exploring the Duality between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis (2012, unknown): “Some studies criticize the number of dependencies between critical components in systems such as Linux (Schach et al, 2002; Rusovan et al, 2005).”
• Exploring the Structure of Complex Software Designs: An Empirical Study of Open Source and Proprietary Code (2006, methodology): “For example, Sullivan et al (2001) use DSMs to formally model (and value) the concept of information hiding, the principle proposed by Parnas to divide designs into modules.”
• The New C Standard (Excerpted material) An Economic and Cultural Commentary (2008, unknown): “One proposed solution is based on the economic theory of options,[39] valuing software structures on the basis of the cost of changing them in the future.”
• Software Architecture Reconstruction: A Process-Oriented Taxonomy (2009, methodology): “An interesting approach for identifying cycles and layers in large applications is the Dependency Structure Matrix (DSM) [138], [154].”
• Design Structure Matrix Extensions and Innovations: A Survey and New Opportunities (2016, background): “Standardizing and managing interfaces [57], [70], [376], [381]”