Stack Overflow in Github: Any Snippets There?

Cristina Lopes; Di Yang; Pedro Martins; Vaibhav Saini

Stack Overflow in Github: Any Snippets There?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1705.01198 v1 pith:NBXP6R2N submitted 2017-05-02 cs.SE

Di Yang , Pedro Martins , Vaibhav Saini , Cristina Lopes This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SE

keywords overflowsnippetsstackanalysiscodegithubprojectsadaptations

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

0 comments

read the original abstract

When programmers look for how to achieve certain programming tasks, Stack Overflow is a popular destination in search engine results. Over the years, Stack Overflow has accumulated an impressive knowledge base of snippets of code that are amply documented. We are interested in studying how programmers use these snippets of code in their projects. Can we find Stack Overflow snippets in real projects? When snippets are used, is this copy literal or does it suffer adaptations? And are these adaptations specializations required by the idiosyncrasies of the target artifact, or are they motivated by specific requirements of the programmer? The large-scale study presented on this paper analyzes 909k non-fork Python projects hosted on Github, which contain 290M function definitions, and 1.9M Python snippets captured in Stack Overflow. Results are presented as quantitative analysis of block-level code cloning intra and inter Stack Overflow and GitHub, and as an analysis of programming behaviors through the qualitative analysis of our findings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Can LLM Prompting Serve as a Proxy for Static Analysis in Vulnerability Detection
cs.CR 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

CWE-specific natural language instructions with contrastive chain-of-thought prompts let LLMs beat default static analyzers on partial-code vulnerability detection for four CWEs.

Pith tools