Context: Short development cycles and continuous delivery pressure often push developers toward expedients that lead to poor design and hard-to-maintain systems. A common remedy is code refactoring, which reduces complexity and improves maintainability, though often seen as costly and risky. Objective: We investigate the long-term effects of refactoring to provide recommendations that support strategic development decisions. Method: We assess refactoring impact through change- and defect-proneness analysis, as well as benefit/effort evaluation. Results: Most refactorings have short-lived effects, persisting for fewer than 10 changes. Structural refactorings may last over 190 changes, with significant differences across families. Medium-lived refactorings (9–19 changes) prove the most stable and efficient, while longer-lasting ones become increasingly defect-prone and costly. Conclusions: Refactorings differ in sustainability. Medium-duration refactorings strike the best balance between stability and maintenance cost, while structural ones, though impactful, pose higher long-term risks. These insights guide prioritization of refactoring types to maximize benefit and minimize technical debt.
Robredo, M., Esposito, M., Palomba, F., Penaloza, R., Lenarduzzi, V. (2026). Analyzing the ripple effects of refactoring. EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 31(5) [10.1007/s10664-025-10801-3].
Analyzing the ripple effects of refactoring
Penaloza R.;
2026
Abstract
Context: Short development cycles and continuous delivery pressure often push developers toward expedients that lead to poor design and hard-to-maintain systems. A common remedy is code refactoring, which reduces complexity and improves maintainability, though often seen as costly and risky. Objective: We investigate the long-term effects of refactoring to provide recommendations that support strategic development decisions. Method: We assess refactoring impact through change- and defect-proneness analysis, as well as benefit/effort evaluation. Results: Most refactorings have short-lived effects, persisting for fewer than 10 changes. Structural refactorings may last over 190 changes, with significant differences across families. Medium-lived refactorings (9–19 changes) prove the most stable and efficient, while longer-lasting ones become increasingly defect-prone and costly. Conclusions: Refactorings differ in sustainability. Medium-duration refactorings strike the best balance between stability and maintenance cost, while structural ones, though impactful, pose higher long-term risks. These insights guide prioritization of refactoring types to maximize benefit and minimize technical debt.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
unpaywall-bitstream-2068999966.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia di allegato:
Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Licenza:
Creative Commons
Dimensione
6.58 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
6.58 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


