Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
110 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

"How do people decide?": A Model for Software Library Selection (2403.16245v1)

Published 24 Mar 2024 in cs.SE and cs.HC

Abstract: Modern-day software development is often facilitated by the reuse of third-party software libraries. Despite the significant effort to understand the factors contributing to library selection, it is relatively unknown how the libraries are selected and what tools are still needed to support the selection process. Using Straussian grounded theory, we conducted and analyzed the interviews of 24 professionals across the world and derived a model of library selection process which is governed by six selection patterns (i.e., rules). The model draws from marketing theory and lays the groundwork for the development of a library selection tool which captures the technical and non-technical aspects developers consider.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (46)
  1. Icek Ajzen. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 2 (1991), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Theories of Cognitive Self-Regulation.
  2. Marc Andreessen. 2011. Why Software Is Eating The World. The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460. Last accessed on 02 February 2023.
  3. Consumer Behavior. Harcourt College Publishers, California, USA. https://books.google.ca/books?id=eocrAQAAMAAJ
  4. Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications, CA, USA.
  5. John W Creswell and Cheryl N Poth. 2016. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications, CA, USA.
  6. Evaluation criteria for free/open source software products based on project analysis. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 11, 2 (2006), 107–122.
  7. F.D. Davis. 1985. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user Information Systems: Theory and Results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management. https://books.google.ca/books?id=hbx8NwAACAAJ
  8. Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319–340. http://www.jstor.org/stable/249008
  9. Fernando López de la Mora and Sarah Nadi. 2018. An empirical study of metric-based comparisons of software libraries. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 22–31.
  10. Fernando López De La Mora and Sarah Nadi. 2018. Which library should i use?: A metric-based comparison of software libraries. In 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Technologies Results (ICSE-NIER). IEEE, Association for Computing Machinery, Gothenburg, Sweden, 37–40.
  11. Jean-Christophe Deprez and Simon Alexandre. 2008. Comparing assessment methodologies for free/open source software: OpenBRR and QSOS. In Product-Focused Software Process Improvement: 9th International Conference, PROFES 2008 Monte Porzio Catone, Italy, June 23-25, 2008 Proceedings 9. Springer, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 189–203.
  12. Mark T Dishaw and Diane M Strong. 1998. Supporting software maintenance with software engineering tools: A computed task–technology fit analysis. Journal of Systems and Software 44, 2 (1998), 107–120.
  13. Who influences whom? Analyzing workplace referents’ social influence on IT adoption and non-adoption. Journal of information technology 24, 1 (2009), 11–24.
  14. Rehab El-Hajj and Sarah Nadi. 2020. LibComp: An IntelliJ plugin for comparing java libraries. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1591–1595.
  15. European-Commission. 2015. The economic and social impact of software & services on competitiveness and innovation (SMART 2015/0015). https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/480eff53-0495-11e7-8a35-01aa75ed71a11. Accessed: 2021-04-22.
  16. Martin Fishbein. 1967. Attitude and the prediction of behavior. Wiley.
  17. M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. https://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html
  18. VERBI GmbH. 2023. The #1 software for qualitative and mixed methods data analysis. VERBI GmbH, https://www.maxqda.com. Last accessed on 03 January 2023.
  19. Siw Elisabeth Hove and Bente Anda. 2005. Experiences from Conducting Semi-structured Interviews in Empirical Software Engineering Research. In 11th IEEE International Symposium on Software Metrics. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, United States, 23.
  20. Tell them apart: distilling technology differences from crowd-scale comparison discussions. In 2018 33rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 214–224.
  21. P. Kotler and G. Armstrong. 2014. Principles of Marketing. Pearson, London, UK. https://books.google.ca/books?id=TA3OoQEACAAJ
  22. How do free/open source developers pick their tools?: A Delphi study of the Debian project. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 232–241.
  23. Selecting third-party libraries: The practitioners’ perspective. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM joint meeting on european software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 245–256.
  24. Exploring factors and metrics to select open source software components for integration: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software 188 (2022), 111255.
  25. API-Related Developer Information Needs in Stack Overflow. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 11 (2021), 4485–4500.
  26. Pattern Discovery and Validation Using Scientific Research Methods. Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming (2021).
  27. Carolyn B. Seaman. 1999. Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 25, 4 (1999), 557–572.
  28. Raphaël Semeteys. 2008. Method for qualification and selection of open source software. Open Source Business Resource May 2008 (2008).
  29. I. Sommerville. 2016. Software Engineering, Global Edition. Pearson Education. https://books.google.ca/books?id=W_LjCwAAQBAJ
  30. Diomidis Spinellis. 2019. How to select open source components. Computer 52, 12 (2019), 103–106.
  31. Hamed Taherdoost. 2018. A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018), 960–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.137 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering, INTER-ENG 2017, 5-6 October 2017, Tirgu Mures, Romania.
  32. Minaoar Tanzil. 2023. “How do people decide?”: A Model for Software Library Selection. University of Calgary, https://github.com/minaoar/How-do-people-decide-A-Model-for-Software-Library-Selection. Last updated on 14 September 2023.
  33. The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books. https://books.google.ca/books?id=EotRAAAAMAAJ
  34. Understanding how and why developers seek and analyze API-related opinions. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 4 (2019), 694–735.
  35. Gias Uddin and Foutse Khomh. 2017a. Automatic summarization of API reviews. In 2017 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, IEEE Press, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA, 159–170.
  36. Gias Uddin and Foutse Khomh. 2017b. Opiner: an opinion search and summarization engine for APIs. In 2017 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, IEEE Press, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA, 978–983.
  37. DiffTech: A tool for differencing similar technologies from question-and-answer discussions. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1576–1580.
  38. DiffTech: Differencing Similar Technologies from Crowd-Scale Comparison Discussions. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 7 (2021), 2399–2416.
  39. OSSpal: finding and evaluating open source software. In IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, Cham, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 193–203.
  40. “Always Contribute Back”: A Qualitative Study on Security Challenges of the Open Source Supply Chain. In In Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (IEEE S&P ’23). IEEE Computer Society. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2023/program-papers.html
  41. Committed to Trust: A Qualitative Study on Security & Trust in Open Source Software Projects. In 43rd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2022/index.html
  42. Software engineering at google: Lessons learned from programming over time. O’Reilly Media.
  43. Open Source License Inconsistencies on GitHub. Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2022). https://oss.cs.fau.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/wolter-2022-open.pdf
  44. Wolf at the Door: Preventing Install-Time Attacks in npm with Latch. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1139–1153.
  45. Concept-Annotated Examples for Library Comparison. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. Association for Computing Machinery, Bend, OR, USA, 1–16.
  46. Kevin Zhu and Kenneth L Kraemer. 2005. Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Information systems research 16, 1 (2005), 61–84.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Minaoar Hossain Tanzil (3 papers)
  2. Gias Uddin (47 papers)
  3. Ann Barcomb (9 papers)
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now