|Comparing 2 programs... email@example.com (Gerald Strout) (1998-09-22)|
|Re: Comparing 2 programs... Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr (Xavier Leroy) (1998-09-22)|
|Re: Comparing 2 programs... karlcz@ISI.EDU (Karl Czajkowski) (1998-09-22)|
|Re: Code similarity. (Was: Comparing 2 programs...) firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-09-22)|
|Re: Code similarity. (Was: Comparing 2 programs...) dgay@barnowl.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1998-09-24)|
|Re: Code similarity. (Was: Comparing 2 programs...) email@example.com (Scott Stanchfield) (1998-09-26)|
|Re: Comparing 2 programs... firstname.lastname@example.org (Bruce Ediger) (1998-09-26)|
|Re: Comparing 2 programs... email@example.com (Dr. Tim McGuire) (1998-10-10)|
|From:||Karl Czajkowski <karlcz@ISI.EDU>|
|Date:||22 Sep 1998 22:28:28 -0400|
|Organization:||USC Information Sciences Institute|
Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr> writes:
>See Alexander Aiken's MOSS (Measure Of Software Similarity) program,
>which he developed to detect plagiarism in programming classes:
>[Let me see if I understand this correctly. We send students through
>four years of university, flunking them out if they work together.
>Then we send them into industry where we bemoan their inability to
>work well as teams. -John]
Once upon a time I TA'd for Alex, and this comment doesn't seem fair.
Nearly all undergrad projects at UC Berkeley are group projects
involving 3 or more students. MOSS proved quite effective at
identifying students who did not work well in programming teams,
students who instead seemed to be dabbling in espionage.
Opinions vary on what, if anything, to do about cheaters. For those
who want to find structural and surface similarities between large
sets of programs, MOSS is a useful tool.
[Point well taken, but off topic so I'll declare this argument over. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.