arXiv subjects

José Aldo Silva da Costa

Publications and source records attributed to José Aldo Silva da Costa.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Comprehending Python Repetition Structures: An Eye-Tracking Study with Novice Developers

Code comprehension is central to software maintenance and evolution, yet different Python repetition structures may impose distinct cognitive demands. We conducted a controlled eye-tracking experiment with 32 undergraduate students with prior Python experience to compare comprehension of for loops, while loops, recursion, and list comprehensions (LCs). Participants solved six comprehension tasks in a Latin Square design while we measured completion behavior and eye-tracking metrics over full snippets and construct-specific Areas of Interest (AOIs). for loops showed the lowest visual effort. Relative to for, while loops increased AOI fixation duration by up to 97% and regression count by 114%, with regressions concentrated around counter management. Recursion showed a descriptive 50% increase in regressions, mainly between the base case and recursive call. LCs increased AOI time by 62.5% and fixation duration by 80.9%, with horizontal regressions suggesting dense token-by-token parsing. LC comparisons yielded the clearest statistically significant pairwise differences, while the combined comparison of all non-for structures was significant across all eye-tracking metrics. These findings provide process-level evidence that Python repetition structures induce distinct visual-effort patterns, with implications for readability, code review, refactoring, onboarding, and maintainability.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Refactoring for Novices in Java: An Eye Tracking Study on the Extract vs. Inline Methods

Developers often extract methods to improve readability, understanding, and reuse, while inlining keeps logic in one block. Prior work based on static metrics has not shown clear differences between these practices, and the human side of comprehension and navigation remains underexplored. We investigate Inline Method vs. Extract Method refactorings using a dynamic approach: eye tracking while participants read and solve tasks. We analyze key code areas and compare visual effort and reading behavior (fixation duration and count, regressions, revisits), alongside time and attempts. We ran a controlled experiment with 32 Java novices, followed by short interviews. Each participant solved eight simple tasks across four programs presented in an inlined version and four in an extracted version. We also surveyed 58 additional novices for complementary quantitative and qualitative data. Results show that effects depend on task difficulty. In two tasks, method extraction improved performance and reduced visual effort, with time decreasing by up to 78.8% and regressions by 84.6%. For simpler tasks (e.g., square area), extraction hurt performance: time increased by up to 166.9% and regressions by 200%. Even with meaningful method names, novices often switched back and forth between call sites and extracted methods, increasing navigation and cognitive load. Preferences frequently favored extraction for readability and reuse, but did not always match measured performance. These findings suggest educators should be cautious about premature modularization for novices and highlight eye tracking as a useful complement to static metrics.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Assessing Python Style Guides: An Eye-Tracking Study with Novice Developers

The incorporation and adaptation of style guides play an essential role in software development, influencing code formatting, naming conventions, and structure to enhance readability and simplify maintenance. However, many of these guides often lack empirical studies to validate their recommendations. Previous studies have examined the impact of code styles on developer performance, concluding that some styles have a negative impact on code readability. However, there is a need for more studies that assess other perspectives and the combination of these perspectives on a common basis through experiments. This study aimed to investigate, through eye-tracking, the impact of guidelines in style guides, with a special focus on the PEP8 guide in Python, recognized for its best practices. We conducted a controlled experiment with 32 Python novices, measuring time, the number of attempts, and visual effort through eye-tracking, using fixation duration, fixation count, and regression count for four PEP8 recommendations. Additionally, we conducted interviews to explore the subjects' difficulties and preferences with the programs. The results highlighted that not following the PEP8 Line Break after an Operator guideline increased the eye regression count by 70% in the code snippet where the standard should have been applied. Most subjects preferred the version that adhered to the PEP8 guideline, and some found the left-aligned organization of operators easier to understand. The other evaluated guidelines revealed other interesting nuances, such as the True Comparison, which negatively impacted eye metrics for the PEP8 standard, although subjects preferred the PEP8 suggestion. We recommend practitioners selecting guidelines supported by experimental evaluations.

cs.SE↗