ChatGPT'nin Programlama Kodu Hata Ayıklama Performansının PyCharm Geleneksel Hata Ayıklama Aracı Performansı ile Karşılaştırılması

Year 2024, Volume: 29 Issue: 3, 890 - 895, 31.12.2024

Fırat Kapar , H. Eray Çelik , Serbest Ziyanak

https://doi.org/10.53433/yyufbed.1514642

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı ChatGPT'nin programlama kodu hata ayıklama yeteneklerini geleneksel hata ayıklama aracı ile karşılaştırarak yeni nesil yapay zeka tabanlı hata ayıklama yaklaşımlarının potansiyelini incelemektedir. Bu amaçla, Python programlama dilinde sıkça rastlanan söz dizimi, mantık ve tür uyuşmazlığı hatalarını içeren programlama kodları türetilmiş ve PyCharm ve OpenAI tarafından geliştirilen ChatGPT-4 ile bu programlama kodları analiz edilerek her iki aracın hata ayıklama performansı karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda ChatGPT-4'ün söz dizimi hatalarında PyCharm ile benzer başarı gösterirken mantık ve tür uyuşmazlığı hatalarını belirlemede PyCharm'a göre çok daha başarılı olduğu saptanmıştır. Bu sonuç doğrultusunda, yapay zekâ destekli araçların, programlama hatalarını etkili bir şekilde tespit etme ve düzeltme konusunda geleneksel yöntemlere kıyasla avantaj sağlayabileceği görülmektedir.

Keywords

ChatGPT, Hata Ayıklama, PyCharm, Python

Comparison of ChatGPT's Programming Code Debugging Performance with PyCharm Traditional Debugging Tool Performance

Abstract

This study aims to examine the potential of next-generation AI-based debugging approaches by comparing the programming code debugging capabilities of ChatGPT with a traditional debugging tool. For this purpose, programming codes containing common syntax, logic, and type mismatch errors in Python were generated and analyzed using PyCharm and OpenAI's ChatGPT-4. The study found that while ChatGPT-4 showed similar success to PyCharm in identifying syntax errors, it was significantly more successful than PyCharm in detecting logic and type mismatch errors. These results suggest that AI-supported tools could provide an advantage over traditional methods in effectively detecting and correcting programming errors.

Keywords

ChatGPT, Debugging, PyCharm, Python

References

• Biswas, S. (2023a). Role of chatgpt in computer programming. Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science, 2023, 8-16. https://doi.org/10.58496/MJCSC/2023/002
• Biswas, S. (2023b). The function of chat gpt in social media: According to chat gpt. SSSN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4405389
• Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (pp. 196-201). John Wiley & Sons.
• Dan'azumi, H., Mohammed, Y. B., & Badara, M. S. (2024). Exploring the use of ChatGPT for resolving programming bugs. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research, 11(3), 34-44.
• Gupta, B., Mufti, T., Sohail, S. S., & Madsen, D. Ø. (2023). Chatgpt: A brief narrative review. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2275851. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2275851
• Hadi, M. A., Abdulredha, M. N., & Hasan, E. (2023). Introduction to chatgpt: A new revolution of artificial intelligence with machine learning algorithms and cybersecurity. Science Archives, 4, 276-285. https://doi.org/10.47587/SA.2023.4406
• Haque, M. A., & Li, S. (2023). The potential use of chatgpt for debugging and bug fixing. EAI Endorsed Transactions on AI and Robotics, 2(1), e4. https://doi.org/10.4108/airo.v2i1.3276
• Jaber, M. A., Beganovic, A., & Abd Almisreb, A. (2023). Methods and applications of chatgpt in software development: A literature review. Southeast Europe Journal of Soft Computing, 12(1), 08-12.
• Liu, J., Tang, X., Li, L., Chen, P., & Liu, Y. (2023, October). Chatgpt vs. stack overflow: An exploratory comparison of programming assistance tools. In 2023 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security Companion (QRS-C) (pp. 364-373). https://doi.org/10.1109/QRS-C60940.2023.00105
• Ouh, E. L., Gan, B. K. S., Jin Shim, K., & Wlodkowski, S. (2023, June). Chatgpt, can you generate solutions for my coding exercises? An evaluation on its effectiveness in an undergraduate java programming course. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 54-60). https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588794
• Quintans-Júnior, L. J., Gurgel, R. Q., Araújo, A. A. D. S., Correia, D., & Martins-Filho, P. R. (2023). Chatgpt: the new panacea of the academic world. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 56, e0060-2023. https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0060-2023
• Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023). Chatgpt for education and research: opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783
• Sobania, D., Briesch, M., Hanna, C., & Petke, J. (2023, May). An analysis of the automatic bug fixing performance of chatgpt. In 2023 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Automated Program Repair (APR) (pp. 23-30). https://doi.org/10.1109/APR59189.2023.00012
• Surameery, N. M. S., & Shakor, M. Y. (2023). Use chat gpt to solve programming bugs. International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Engineering (IJITC), 3(01), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.55529/ijitc.31.17.22
• Wong, W. E., Li, X., & Laplante, P. A. (2017). Be more familiar with our enemies and pave the way forward: a review of the roles bugs played in software failures. Journal of Systems and Software, 133, 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.06.069