International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

How are Identifiers Named in Open Source Software?
On Popularity and Consistency
Yanqing Wanga*, Chong Wangb, Xiaojie Lia, Sijing Yuna, Minjing Songa
a

School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
b

Huaihai Institute of Technology, Lianyungang 222005, China

Abstract—With the rapid increasing of software project

size and maintenance cost, adherence to coding
standards especially by managing identifier naming, is
attracting a pressing concern from both computer
science educators and software managers. Software
developers mainly use identifier names to represent the
knowledge recorded in source code. However, the
popularity and adoption consistency of identifier naming
conventions have not been revealed yet in this field.
Taking forty-eight popular open source projects written
in three top-ranking programming languages Java, C
and C++ as examples, an identifier extraction tool based
on regular expression matching is developed. In the
subsequent investigation, some interesting findings are
obtained. For the identifier naming popularity, it is
found that Camel and Pascal naming conventions are
leading the road while Hungarian notation is vanishing.
For the identifier naming consistency, we have found
that the projects written in Java have a much better
performance than those written in C and C++. Finally,
academia and software industry are urged to adopt the
most popular naming conventions consistently in their
practices so as to lead the identifier naming to a
standard, unified and high-quality road.
Keywords--- identifier naming convention, coding
standards, open source project, identifier naming
popularity, identifier naming consistency

I.

INTRODUCTION

In rapid-growing software industry, more and more
attention has been drawn to software maintainability and
ultimate quality assurance [1,2]. Product reliability and
maintainability has become the spotlight of software
industry. The viewpoint that higher readability and
understandability are helpful for software maintenance has
been generally accepted [3,4,5]. Some popular integrated
development environments (IDEs), such as Netbeans,

Eclipse and Code::blocks, have the automatic formatting
function to beautify indentation or layout of source code,
but they cannot beautify identifier naming because identifier
is more like an artifact than a machine-generated character
sequence. Identifier name is a major way for programmers
to communicate concepts [4] and represent the knowledge
recorded in source code [6].
Lots of researchers have discovered that identifier
naming conventions are of paramount importance for
software quality. In computer programming, a naming
convention is a set of rules for choosing the character
sequence to be used for identifiers which denote variables,
types, objects and functions etc. in source code and
documentation. Identifiers occupy a large percentage of
source code in programming, more than two thirds in some
projects and identifier naming has a close relationship with
the quality and comprehensibility of a software system [4].
Butler et al have proved the negative effect between
identifier naming defects and source code reliability from
statistical view by using findbugs [7]. Some empirical
studies and dynamic feedback have verified the positive
effect between identifier naming and source code readability
[4,6,8].
Fortunately, academia and software industry have
proposed several identifier naming rules. Carter put forward
an identifier naming criterion to enhance software
maintainability [3]. Programmers should reach an
agreement on all identifiers' abbreviation which may
possibly be used before writing programs. Although being
not easy to be popularized in today's source code writing, it
gave us a new idea to establish appropriate identifier
naming standard. In last decades, such software
organizations as IBM, Microsoft, Bell Laboratory made
great contribution to coding standards including identifier
naming. Many scholars have proposed their own identifier
naming rules as well [9,10,11]. Some of the rules are
language-specific, such as Java identifier naming guidelines
[11] and C identifier naming guidelines [10,12].

*

Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: yanqing@hit.edu.cn (Y.Q. Wang), zgwangc@sina.cn (C. Wang)

www.ijcit.com

616

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

So far, the research on identifier naming rules has been
focused on three aspects: (1) to enhance understandability of
identifier naming, such as compiling an identifier dictionary
[13,14], suggesting all the identifiers be composed by the
type names [14,15] and limiting length of identifiers [16];
(2) to analyze the identifier names according to syntax rules
[10,13,17]; (3) to dig the identifiers’ constituent from the
semantic angle [4,12,18]; (4) to investigate the impact of
program identifier style on human comprehension [19].
However, there are still some major issues on identifier
naming nowadays, which result from many aspects such as
programmers' cultural practices or educational issues [8].
First, the choice of naming conventions (and the extent to
which they are enforced) is often an enormously
controversial issue, with partisans holding their viewpoint to
be the best and others to be inferior. Second, even with
known and well-defined naming conventions in place, some
organizations may fail to consistently adhere to them,
causing inconsistency and confusion of identifier naming
even in a single project. These challenges may be
exacerbated if the naming convention rules are internally
inconsistent, arbitrary, difficult to remember, or otherwise
perceived as more burdensome than beneficial. Therefore,
the research on popularity and consistency of identifier
naming becomes more and more urgent.
The remainder of the paper outlines as follows. Some
necessary background information is presented in Section 2.
Section 3 describes the investigation design. The results are
analyzed in Section 4. Section 5 remarks this paper and
presents some suggestions to software educators and
software industry.

II.

BACKGROUNDS

TIOBE Software, a world-level coding standards
company, presents the popularity ranking of programming
languages every month. The update data are illustrated in
Appendix A [20]. Thus, we focus our study on the top three
popular programming languages including C, C++ and
Java.
A. The identifier naming conventions we focus in this
study
To the best of our knowledge, five naming conventions
Hungarian, Camel, Pascal, Underline and Capital are
widely adopted.
(1) Hungarian notation. One or more lowercase letters
are used as the prefix of an identifier, so as to identify the
scope and type of the identifier. After the prefix is one or
more words with first letter uppercase, and the word should
indicate the purpose of the variable [21,22]. The prefixes of
Hungarian naming convention are listed in Appendix B. An
identifier example in Hungarian naming convention is:
int lpQueueHead ;
(2) Camel naming convention. It is also spelled camel
case. Uppercase letters are taken as word separators,

www.ijcit.com

lowercase for the rest. The initial letter of the first word is in
lower case as a camel is bowing its head. For example,
printEmployeePaychecks( ) ;
(3) Pascal naming convention. It is similar to the
Camel naming convention except that the initial letter of the
first word is uppercase. For example:
public class BankAccount {
...
};
new Circle(1.0) ;
(4) Capital naming convention. A naming convention
in which any identifier is composed of one or more words
(separated with underline mark) written totally in uppercase
letters, e.g. NUMBER_OF_STUDENTS. Most of time, this
naming convention is used to define constants.
(5) Underline naming convention. Similar to Pascal
and Camel, identifier in this convention is composed of one
or more words or acronyms except that the separator
between words is not an uppercase letter but an underline
mark. For example:
int student_account_no = 30 ;
float monthly_interest = 4.5 ;
Thought an identifier in Capital naming convention
may have one or more underline marks in it, it belongs to
the above category Capital naming convention but not
Underline naming convention.
In addition, some naming conventions such as
Positional Notation in COBOL and Composite word scheme
in IBM's OF language are used in very specific developing
environments (JCL, MS-DOS or IBM company) and their
usages are evanishing. Similarly, Pre-underline naming
convention, in which every identifier begins with one or
more underline marks, is generally used to distinguish
several similar identifiers by some C or C++ programmers
in very early years. Therefore, the relevant researches on
them are not covered in this paper.
B. RegEx-based identifier recognition
Some software such as yacc and srcml can extract
identifier efficiently. However, to get more detailed
information for the following analysis, we develop an
algorithm to recognize identifier automatically. After an
identifier has been extracted, regular expression is applied
to match it with the five considered naming conventions.
When extracting identifiers from a source program, it is not
a good idea to scan the file word by word because the
scanning process is often disturbed by non-identifiers, and
each variable has its individual definition. The appearance
times and line numbers cannot be obtained only by
addressing definition sentences so that two arrays are used.
One array carries the identifiers obtained from definition
sentences, the other stores the identifiers which are

617

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

extracted when scanning the whole file and ignoring
punctuations, constants, reserved words, etc. The latter
array also helps system get occurrence times and line
numbers of a certain identifier.
After being extracted, each identifier is attempted to
match with pre-constructed regular expressions, as listed in
Table 1, so that its naming convention will be determined.
As mentioned above, five categories are defined and
miscellaneous identifiers are ignored. By the way, two
naming conventions Underline and Capital have somewhat
intersection, but it does not affect our conclusion in
following sections because Capital naming convention
occupies a quite small proportion.
Table 1 Regular expressions of 5 naming conventions
Naming
Regular Expression
Convention
Camel
\b(([a-z]+([A-Z][a-z]*)+)|[a-z]{2,})\d*\b
Pascal

\b([A-Z][a-z]+)+\d*\b

Underline

\b(([a-z]+(\d*)+_)+([a-z]*\d*)+)\b

Hungarian

\b([gmcs]_)?(p|fn|v|h|l|b|f|dw|sz|n|d|c|ch|i|
by|w|r|u)(Max|Min|Init|T|Src|Dest)?([AZ][a-z]+)+\d*\b
\b([A-Z]*(\d*)+_)*([A-Z]*\d*)+\b

Capital
C. 2.3 The tool

In computer science and software engineering research,
experimental systems and toolkits play a crucial role [23].
To undertake our study well, we design and develop an

application tool in Java with the IDE netbeans, whose
human computer interface is illustrated in Fig. 1. The tool
has three features as follows.
(1) This tool can deal with three kinds of popular
languages C, C++ and Java. Experiment operator can
choose project language by clicking one of the three
"Language" radio buttons. Some open source projects are
written in hybrid languages, for example, OpenOffice is
written in both C++ and Java. Thus, the language option is
designed to make sure the tool just focuses on specific file
types (extension name) and ignores others. The considered
files types of three languages are shown in Appendix C.
(2) This tool can run in three different modes: single
file mode, single project mode and multiple project mode,
as illustrated in Fig 1. In single project mode, when one
folder name is selected, all files in it will be scanned fully
recursively and the files with satisfactory types will be dealt
with. In multiple project mode, the selected folder name is
not the project name but a set of projects, in which each
sub-folder is a project name.
(3) There are three text areas which are used to hold
project names, file names and detailed or summary results.
The checkbox buttons Silent Mode and Debug are used to
control the granularity of output information. When Silent
Mode is on, no detailed information is output to console.
When Debug is on, some information which helps find
defects will be shown in result area.
After each project has been scanned, the summary
result will be stored into one MS SQL table, as illustrated in
Appendix D, as one record row.

Fig. 1 User interface of the tool for extracting and recognizing identifiers

www.ijcit.com

618

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

III.

conventions, i.e. only a few naming conventions are being
adopted in one project. Afterwards, the investigation is
undertaken with the help of professional statistical tools
such as SPSS 16.0 and MS Excel 2003.

INVESTIGATION DESIGN

A. Selection of open source projects
Open source projects are determined as our
investigation data source. The analysis of open-source code
is drawing much attention from academia [24]. Although
Lawrie et al have proved that open and proprietary source
include different identifier quality [14], it does not matter to
select open source projects as the data source since
identifier quality is not our concern in this research. Finally,
10 projects in C (12.4 MLOC), 14 projects in C++ (17.7
MLOC) and 24 projects in Java (7.1 MLOC), totally 37.2
MLOC approximately, are involved in this study. Some
leading open source organizations such as Sourceforge, sun,
GNU and apache own the licenses of majority of the
selected projects.

B. Data preparation
With the developed tool just mentioned, the 48 selected
projects are input into the system grouped by programming
languages and the output are stored in the pre-defined
database table. Besides project name, version and the
identifier number in the five considered naming conventions
mentioned above, the total number of valid identifiers and
total LOC are also recorded. The naming convention usages
in 3 languages are shown in Appendix E through G.

C. Statistical method
In probability theory and statistics, the coefficient of
variation (CV) is a normalized measure of dispersion of a
probability distribution. It is defined as the ratio of the
standard deviation to the mean:
CV  s x
E.1
where CV stands for coefficient of variation, s denotes
standard deviation, x is the mean of all parameters. The
greater CV is, the more dispersion variation degree of the
data set has.
In this paper, CV is applied to compare the dispersion
degree of identifiers writing in all kinds of naming
conventions in open source projects. By computing the
dispersion index, we can judge whether the using of naming
conventions is centralized or not. A greater CV means a
higher fluctuation and a higher consistency of naming

IV.

DATA ANALYSIS

In order to prove that our research is based on a
feasible classification of identifier naming conventions and
the considered five naming conventions are sufficient for
this study, the data in Appendix E through G are
summarized group by programming languages (C, C++,
Java), as depicted in Table 2. An index match ratio is
defined to mean the number of matched identifiers (five
considered naming conventions) over the total number of all
identifiers.
The data in Table 2 shows that, the identifiers in five
naming conventions account for a large ratio in the total
identifiers. The match ratios of C, C++ and Java projects
are 88.71%, 83.88% and 91.87% correspondingly. It can be
concluded that these five naming conventions we focus are
widely adopted among software programmers and
organizations.

A. Which naming conventions have higher
popularity?
In order to comprehend the popularity of the five
naming conventions, their distributions (the number of each
identifier over Total identifier in percentage) are listed in
Table 3.
For the investigation of popularity, from the total
distribution of five naming conventions, no matter in C,
C++ or Java, Camel is the most popular convention, which
accounts for 46.99% in C, 51.13% in C++, and 85.39% in
Java. Underline convention occupies 44.16% in C, almost
as much as Camel. In C++, the ratio of Hungarian
convention is far greater than C and Java. However, the
ratio of Capital convention is almost the same in C, C++
and Java. Thus, we conclude that the five naming
conventions have different popularity.
Furthermore, from Table 3 and Fig. 2, it is easy to find
that the popularities of naming conventions in projects
written in different programming languages vary. The
popularities of five naming conventions in C, C++ and Java
projects are ordered as in Table 4. Therefore, we know that
the popularity does relate with programming languages.

Table 2 Total numbers of matched identifiers and total match ratio of 3 programming languages
Language
Pascal
Camel
Hungarian
Underline
Capital
matched
total

www.ijcit.com

C
29,710
535,132
5,072
502,930
46,661
1,119,505
1,261,940

C++
221,389
760,603
298,335
137,225
60,682
1,478,234
1,762,233

Java
78,837
1,026,215
6,351
5,180
72,311
1,188,894
1,294,165

619

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

match ratio

88.71%

83.88%

91.87%

Table 3 Distribution of 5 naming conventions in 3 programming languages
Language
Pascal
Camel
Hungarian Underline
Capital
C
2.61%
46.99%
0.45%
44.16%
4.10%
C++
14.88%
51.13%
20.05%
9.22%
4.08%
Java
6.56%
85.39%
0.53%
0.43%
6.02%
Table 4 Popularity order of 5 naming conventions in 3 programming languages
Language
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
C
Camel Underline Capital Pascal
Hungarian
C++
Camel Hungarian Pascal Underline Capital
Java
Camel Pascal
Capital Hungarian Underline

Usage distributions of 5 naming conventions
90.00%

Percentage

C Projects
70.00%

C++ Projects

50.00%

Java Projects

30.00%
10.00%
-10.00%

Pascal

Camel

Hungarian

Underline

Capital

Naming Conventions

Fig. 2 Usage distribution of five naming conventions grouped by programming languages

Comparison of CV
2.50
2.00

CV

1.50
1.00
C Projects
C++ Projects

0.50

Java Projects
0.00
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Projects

Fig. 3 Comparison of CV in three programming languages

B. In which languages, projects have higher naming
consistency?
For each project, the CV of naming conventions has
been calculated. Through comparing every CV with each

www.ijcit.com

other, we can obtain the evaluation of dispersion degree of
naming conventions. The conclusion is depicted as in Table
5. The corresponding line graph, as illustrated in Fig. 3, is
based on the data in Table 5.

620

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

Table 5 Coefficients of variation in all projects
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Average

C Project
haproxy
cherokee
zabbix
nginx
httpd
net-snmp
subversion
MingGW
gcc
linux

C CV
1.53
1.52
1.25
1.64
1.52
1.51
1.12
1.46
1.28
1.40

C++ Project
UnitTest
sockets
GigaBASE
ekiga
LiteSQL
PorkerTH
Nestopia
codeblocks
mysql
CLucene
qt
firefox
CodeLite
Shareaza

1.42

The data in Table 5 show that the 10 projects in C
language, the 14 projects in C++, and the 24 projects in
Java all have different CVs. Therefore, we know that open
source projects have different naming consistency.
Moreover, after examining the CV value in Table 5, it
is obvious that the values of projects in Java are, on the
whole, higher than those of projects in C and C++. The
average CV of C, C++ and Java projects are 1.42, 1.39, and
2.02 respectively. Also, three curves in Fig. 3 show that

V.

REMARKS AND SUGGESTIONS

Identifiers are clearly important to comprehending the
concepts in a program [14] so that the research on the
adoption of identifier naming is of great importance. While
lots of proprietary software projects are running on
computers globally, open source projects are showing great
vitality in computer world. Therefore, to uncover the current
adoption status of identifier naming, 48 open source projects
are involved in this study.
This investigation mainly focuses two issues:
popularity of identifier naming, and consistency of identifier
naming. As for the former, Camel and Underline
conventions have highest popularity in C projects, Camel

www.ijcit.com

C++ CV
1.45
0.96
1.69
1.25
1.42
1.70
1.18
1.24
1.21
1.46
1.82
1.75
1.28
1.05

1.39

Java Project
tiles
ftpserver
mina
velocity
FreeMind
freemarker
checkstyle
Dependency
pmd
struts
dwr
hibernate
findbugs
ant
JFreeChart
jruby
tomcat
JasperReports
axis2
spring
openjpa
JEdit
OOo(Java)
Netbeans

Java CV
2.04
1.92
2.02
1.93
2.13
1.89
1.94
2.08
1.82
2.09
2.01
2.17
2.11
2.06
2.18
1.98
2.10
2.12
2.07
2.06
2.01
1.85
1.73
2.06
2.02

fluctuating margin of Java projects is minimum. Its CV
values hold on the 2.00 level from beginning to the end. In
contrast, the curve of C and C++ projects have greater
fluctuations, especially of C++ , whose biggest CV is close
to 2.00 while the smallest one is lower than 1.00. Therefore,
Java projects have the highest consistency in naming
conventions, C projects follow and C++ projects stand last.

and Pascal are the highest popular in Java projects, and
Camel and Underline are top two in C++ projects. With
regard to the latter, Java projects stand at the highest
position, C projects follow it and C++ projects are left
behind. Coefficient of variation presents distribution degree
of naming conventions in every project in detail. By and
large, correlation coefficient of Java projects is the greatest
and its curve is the most stable. C++ projects have a larger
fluctuation.
In this study, we do not mean to rank the three
programming languages C, C++ and Java. Meanwhile, we
do not judge which is the best identifier naming convention
either. Every programming language is a miracle of human
intelligence in the fields of computer science and

621

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

mathematics. Also, every identifier naming convention has
an interesting history. As we know, C programming
language was invented the earliest, C++ followed, and now
Java becomes one of the most popular languages.
Generally, today’s C++ programmers are accustomed to
identifier naming habits they learned from C programs
while they are building up some new naming convention
habits from Java language. That may be why naming
conventions in C++ projects disperse and naming
conventions in Java projects have better performance. From
the performance of C, C++ and Java, it is possible to
envisage that, as to identifier naming conventions,
mainstream programming languages are interacting and
learning from each other. Identifier naming emerges a
convergence trend.
Based on the above research, our recommendations to
the managers of software organizations, whether you are
developing open source projects or proprietary ones,
include: (1) require your software programmers to adopt the
most popular identifier naming conventions such as Camel,
Pascal and Capital so that it will greatly facilitate the
cooperation with other software organizations or within
your own organization; (2) monitor the consistency of
identifier naming by your programmers when you are
developing specific software project because consistent
identifier naming may decrease maintenance cost and
reduce the risk from the mobility of talents.
Similarly, to the educators of educational institutes, the
recommendations embrace: (1) develop your students' habit
of utilizing the most popular identifier naming conventions
mentioned above and inform them that it will be helpful for
them to get a competitive position in software industry in
the future; (2) train your students to enhance their cognition
of consistent identifier naming and be well prepared to
develop or manage large-scale software projects.

REFERENCES
[1] K. H. Bennett, V.T. Rajlich, Software Maintenance and
Evolution: A Roadmap, in: Proceedings of the
Conference on the Future of Software Engineering,
ACM Press, 2000, pp.75–87 & 73.
[2] B. Boehm, V. Basili. Software Defect Reduction Top 10
List. Computer 34 (1) (2001) 135–137.
[3] B. Carter, On choosing identifiers. ACM SIGPLAN
Notices 17 (5) (1982) 54–59.
[4] F. Deißenböck, M. Pizka, Concise and consistent
naming, in: Proceedings of the 13th International
Workshop on Program Comprehension, IEEE
Computer Society, St. Louis, MO, USA, 2005, pp.261–
282.
[5] Y.Q. Wang, Z.Y. Qi, L.J. Zhang, M.J. Song, Research
and Practice on Education of SQA at Source Code
Level. International Journal of Engineering Education
27 (1) (2011) 70–76.

www.ijcit.com

[6] S. Butler, The effect of identifier naming on source code
readability and quality, in: Proceedings of the Doctoral
Symposium for ESEC/FSE, 2009, pp.33–34.
[7] S. Butler, M. Wermelinger, Y. Yu, H. Sharp, Relating
identifier naming flaws and code quality: an empirical
study, in: Proceedings of the 16th Working Conference
on Reverse Engineering, WCRE'09, 2009, pp.31–35.
[8] P.A. Relf, Tool assisted identifier naming for improved
software readability: an empirical study, in:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Empirical Software Engineering, IEEE, 2005, pp.5362.
[9] N. Anquetil, T. Lethbridge, Assessing the relevance of
identifier names in a legacy software system, in:
Proceedings of the Conference of the Centre for
Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research,
CASCON' 1998, IBM Press, 1998, pp. 213-222.
[10] Sun Microsystems. Java Code Conventions. Technical
report, Santa Clara, CA.
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconventi
ons-150003.pdf
[11] P.A. Relf. Achieving software quality through
identifier names, Report presented at Qualcon, 2004.
http://www.aoq.asn.au/conference2004/conference.htm
l
[12] B. Caprile, P. Tonella, Restructuring program identifier
names, in: Proceedings of the International Conference
Software Maintenance, ICSM'2000, San Jose, CA,
2000, pp.97–107.
[13] D. Lawrie, C. Morrell, H. Feild, D. Binkley, What’s in
a name? A study of identifiers, in: Proceedings of the
14th
International
conference
on
program
comprehension, Athens, Greece, 2006, pp.3–12.
[14] D. Lawrie, H. Feild, D. Binkley, Quantifying identifier
quality: an analysis of trends. Empirical Software
Engineering
12
(4)
(2007)
359–388.
doi:10.1007/s10664-006-9032-2
[15] D. Keller, A Guide to Natural Naming. ACM
SIGPLAN Notices 25 (5) (1990) 95–102.
[16] D. Binkley, D. Lawrie, S. Maex, C. Morrell, Identifier
length and limited programmer memory. Science of
Computer Programming 74(7) (2009) 430–445.
doi:10.1016/j.scico.2009.02.006
[17] M. Henricson, E. Nyquist, Programming in C++: Rules
and recommendations. Technical report, Ellemtel
Telecommunication Systems Laboratories, 1992.
[18] S. Butler, Mining Java class identifier naming
conventions, in: Proceedings of the 34th International
Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE'2012,
2012, pp.1641–1643. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2012.6227216
[19] D. Binkley, M. Davis, D. Lawrie, J.I. Maletic, C.
Morrell, B. Sharif, The impact of identifier style on
effort and comprehension. Empirical Software
Engineering 18 (2013) 219–276. doi:10.1007/s10664012-9201-4

622

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

[20]

Website
for
TIOBE
Software,
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci
/index.html
[21] C. Simonyi, M. Heller, The Hungarian Revolution.
Byte Journal 16 (8) (1991) 131–138.
[22] C. Simonyi, Hungarian Notation, MSDN Library,
Microsoft, 1999, http://msdn2.microsoft.com/enus/library/aa260976(VS.60).aspx

[23] K. Mens, M.G.J. van den Brand, H. M. Kienle, Guest
editors’ introduction to the 4th issue of experimental
software and toolkits (EST-4), Science of Computer
Programming 79 (2014) 1–5.
[24] S. Bajracharya, J. Ossher, C. Lopes. Sourcerer: An
infrastructure for large-scale collection and analysis of
open-source code, Science of Computer Programming
79 (2014) 241–259.

Appendix A Language Popularity Ranking by TIOBE Software in April 2013 (Top 5)
Position
Apr 2013
1
2
3
4
5

Position
Apr 2012
1
2
3
4
5

Delta in
Position
=
=
=
=
=

Programming
Language
C
Java
C++
Objective-C
C#

Ratings
Apr 2013
17.862%
17.681%
9.714%
9.598%
6.150%

Delta
Apr 2012
+0.31%
+0.65%
+0.82%
+1.36%
-1.20%

Status
A
A
A
A
A

Note: status "A" means this language is considered to be mainstream language
Appendix B Prefixes in Hungarian naming convention
Prefix
a
b
by
c
cb
cr
cx

Type
Array
Boolean
Byte
Char
Char Byte
Color Ref
Short Int

Prefix
cy
dw
fn
h
i
l
lp

Type
Short Int
Double Word
function
Handle
integer
Long Int
Long Pointer

Prefix
m_
n
np
p
s
sz
w

Type
Member
Short Int
Near Pointer
Pointer
String
String with zero end
Word

Appendix C Considered files types of three programming languages
Language
C
C++
Java

File types
*.c, *.h
*.c, *.h, *.cpp, *.hpp
*.java

Appendix D Structure and example rows in database table Result
Project
checkstyle
codeblocks
MingGW
...

Version
5.1
8.02
5.1.6
...

www.ijcit.com

Language Pascal …
Java
987
C++
8661
C
849
...
...

…
…
…
...

Total No. of ID Total LOC
Total No. of Files
9328
51265
767
32738
277623
1356
73179
1069848
5068
...
...
...

623

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

Appendix E Naming convention usage in 10 projects written in C language (sorted by LOC)
Project name
haproxy
cherokee
zabbix
nginx
httpd
net-snmp
subversion
MingGW
gcc
linux

Version
1.4.6
1.0.1
1.8.2
0.8.35
2.2.15
5.5
1.6.11
5.1.6
4.4.2
2.6.34

Pascal

Camel Hungarian Underline Capital TotalID TotalLOC
0
137
0
87
0
276
3,037
20
2,186
36
1,346
36
3,926
59,009
12
3,581
46
2,013 1,221
7,485
73,863
0
3,743
0
2,045
15
6,349
78,256
86 10,861
303
6,839
260 20,187
220,287
169
8,568
121
4,623
455 15,194
240,010
83
9,353
42
7,762
115 23,801
551,513
849 36,587
180
23,372 1,780 73,179 1,069,848
18,872 83,598
190
33,309 7,800 180,413 2,171,562
9,619 376,518
4,154
421,534 34,979 931,130 7,949,745

Appendix F Naming convention usage in 14 projects written in C++ language (sorted by LOC)
Project name
UnitTest++
sockets
GigaBASE
ekiga
LiteSQL
PorkerTH
Nestopia
codeblocks
MySQL
CLucene
qt
firefox
CodeLite
Shareaza

Version
1.4
2.3.9.2
3.7.7
3.2.6
0.3.8
0.7.1
1.40
8.02
5.1.45
0.9.21
4.6.2
3.6
2.5.3
2.5.3.0

Pascal
165
540
381
326
346
1,203
5,491
8,661
3,772
3,729
19,300
7,364
68,097
102,014

Camel Hungarian Underline
178
0
11
647
19
441
3,813
156
648
2,050
17
1,393
3,238
923
489
6,432
19
1,008
4,836
160
85
14,740
891
2,074
25,795
344
18,261
33,845
223
11,427
170,731
4,051
16,285
139,569
4,960
17,371
192,343
21,615
38,509
162,386
264,957
29,223

Capital
1
117
156
201
121
107
2,120
1,262
3,886
1,804
6,568
12,331
10,088
21,920

TotalID
387
2,078
5,766
4,667
6,196
10,251
13,511
32,738
58,306
92,271
257,611
205,286
396,898
676,267

TotalLOC
3,844
19,761
62,522
71,567
80,059
111,899
115,879
277,623
783,228
823,721
2,374,217
2,633,979
3,939,861
6,383,063

Appendix G Naming convention usage in 24 projects written in Java language (sorted by LOC)
Project name
tiles
ftpserver
mina
velocity
FreeMind
freemarker
checkstyle
DependencyFinder
pmd
struts2
dwr
hibernate
findbugs
ant
JFreeChart
jruby
tomcat

www.ijcit.com

Version Pascal Camel Hungarian Underline Capital TotalID TotalLOC
2.1.4
320
2,466
1 line
0
98
2,986
17,557
1.0.4
241
2,819
8
0
402
3,553
19,639
1.1.7
363
3,239
8
7
201
3,984
21,820
1.6.3
403
3,751
5
32
399
5,162
36,860
0.9.0 RC7
461
6,574
56
12
287
7,943
39,179
2.3.16
477
4,172
22
40
470
5,830
43,048
5.1
987
7,171
22
22
469
9,328
51,265
1.2.1B3
651
7,935
4
60
445 10,312
58,991
4.2.5
805
6,573
22
107
925
9,901
60,617
2.1.6
1,151 11,967
11
11
479 14,078
62,992
3.0.0.116
833
8,859
64
17
672 10,730
77,188
3.0 RC1
1,089 14,823
5
3
476 17,423
94,930
1.3.9
1,237 18,857
60
42 1,146 22,607 110,473
1.8.1
1,367 22,050
57
35 1,949 27,545 126,218
1.0.13
967 17,224
36
0
750 22,116 127,816
1.4.0
1,287 14,413
75
166 1,118 18,510 149,580
6.0.26
1,470 24,985
124
64 1,815 30,195 168,819

624

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 03 – Issue 03, May 2014

JasperReports
axis2
spring-framework
openjpa
JEdit
OpenOffice(Java)
Netbeans

www.ijcit.com

3.7.3
1.4.1
3.0.0
2.0.0
4.3.2
3.2.0
6.8

746 23,437
2,368 43,046
5,614 47,255
3,953 52,616
4,012 43,186
6,073 53,800
41,962 584,997

33
56
16
194
872
2,383
2,217

0 2,225 28,663 190,634
450 3,173 54,221 288,287
11 1,832 56,235 318,107
55 2,046 67,351 353,442
1,182 3,604 61,392 368,669
702 3,920 77,575 408,254
2,162 43,410 726,525 3,898,230

625

