Practitioners' Expectations on Automated Code Comment Generation
Xing Hu, Xin Xia, David Lo, Zhiyuan Wan, Qiuyuan Chen, Thomas Zimmermann
Abstract
Good comments are invaluable assets to software projects, as they help developers understand and maintain projects. However, due to some poor commenting practices, comments are often missing or inconsistent with the source code. Software engineering practitioners often spend a significant amount of time and effort reading and understanding programs without or with poor comments. To counter this, researchers have proposed various techniques to automatically generate code comments in recent years, which can not only save developers time writing comments but also help them better understand existing software projects. However, it is unclear whether these techniques can alleviate comment issues and whether practitioners appreciate this line of research. To fill this gap, we performed an empirical study by interviewing and surveying practitioners about their expectations of research in code comment generation. We then compared what practitioners need and the current state-of-the-art research by performing a literature review of papers on code comment generation techniques published in the premier publication venues from 2010 to 2020. From this comparison, we highlighted the directions where researchers need to put effort to develop comment generation techniques that matter to practitioners.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext c88faac9-0ade-4c04-b1d2-50b2ec0f1a2dCited by top-tier papers6
- MAGIS: LLM-Based Multi-Agent Framework for GitHub Issue ResolutionWei Tao, Yucheng Zhou, Yanlin Wang, Wenqiang Zhang et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 210 citations
- An Empirical Study on Software Bill of Materials: Where We Stand and the Road AheadBoming Xia, Tingting Bi, Zhenchang Xing, Qinghua Lu et al.ICSE 2023 · 82 citations
- Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language ModelsWeisong Sun, Yun Miao, Yuekang Li, Hongyu Zhang et al.ICSE 2025 · 37 citations
- Learning in the Wild: Towards Leveraging Unlabeled Data for Effectively Tuning Pre-trained Code ModelsShuzheng Gao, Wenxin Mao, Cuiyun Gao, Li Li et al.ICSE 2024 · 15 citations
- Are They All Good? Studying Practitioners' Expectations on the Readability of Log MessagesZhenhao Li, An Ran Chen, Xing Hu, Xin Xia et al.ASE 2023 · 6 citations
Builds on9
- Retrieval-based neural source code summarizationJian Zhang, Xu Wang, Hongyu Zhang, Hailong Sun et al.ICSE 2020 · 242 citations
- Software documentation: the practitioners' perspectiveEmad Aghajani, Csaba Nagy, Mario Linares-Vásquez, Laura Moreno et al.ICSE 2020 · 112 citations
- Retrieve and Refine: Exemplar-based Neural Comment GenerationBolin Wei, Yongmin Li, Ge Li, Xin Xia et al.ASE 2020 · 68 citations
- Automating Just-In-Time Comment UpdatingZhongxin Liu, Xin Xia, Meng Yan, Shanping LiASE 2020 · 46 citations
- Code to Comment "Translation": Data, Metrics, Baselining & EvaluationDavid Gros, Hariharan Sezhiyan, Prem Devanbu, Zhou YuASE 2020 · 43 citations
Related papers
- How Practitioners Expect Code Completion?Chaozheng Wang, Junhao Hu, Cuiyun Gao, Yu Jin et al.FSE 2023 · 24 citations
- Practitioners' Expectations on Automated Test GenerationXiao Yu, Lei Liu, Xing Hu, Jacky Keung et al.ISSTA 2024 · 5 citations
- Natural Language to Code: How Far Are We?Shangwen Wang, Mingyang Geng, Bo Lin, Zhensu Sun et al.FSE 2023 · 24 citations
- Source Code Recommender Systems: The Practitioners' PerspectiveMatteo Ciniselli, Luca Pascarella, Emad Aghajani, Simone Scalabrino et al.ICSE 2023 · 6 citations
- Developer-Intent Driven Code Comment GenerationFangwen Mu, Xiao Chen, Lin Shi, Song Wang et al.ICSE 2023 · 25 citations
