• • Table 2 lists the metrics evaluated in the study, including a short description and a reference to the definition of the metric. All of the metrics are proposed by Chidamber and Kimerer [CK94] or by Lorenz & Kidd [LK94] (?) However, we rule out some of the proposed metrics because they received serious critique in the literature (LCOM and RFC [CK94]), because the definition isn’t clear (MCX, CCO, CCP, CRE [LK94]; LCOM [CK94, EDL98]), because the lack of static typing in Smalltalk prohibits the computation of the metric (CBO [CK94]), because the metric is too similar with another metric included in the list (NIM, NCM and PIM in [LK94] resemble WMC-NOM in [CK94]), or simply because the metric is deemed inappropriate (NAC, SIX, MUI, FFU, FOC, CLM, PCM, PRC [LK94])

Follow-ons

• early students vs. later students
• students vs. professionals
• single vs pair-programming
• Eclipse vs other IDEs
• Java vs other languages