VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matthew Burrows
dblp:410/4768
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Software maintenance and evolution · 67% Empirical software engineering · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software maintenance and evolution
code smell |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Your Build Scripts Stink: The State of Code Smells in Build Scripts · ASE 2025 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Your Build Scripts Stink: The State of Code Smells in Build Scripts · ASE 2025 |
Software maintenance and evolution
technical debt |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Your Build Scripts Stink: The State of Code Smells in Build Scripts · ASE 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
user study · 0.9static analysis · 0.9quantitative analysis · 0.9qualitative analysis · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Your Build Scripts Stink: The State of Code Smells in Build ScriptsabstractBuild scripts automate the process of compiling source code, managing dependencies, running tests, and packaging software into deployable artifacts. These scripts are ubiquitous in modern software development pipelines for streamlining testing and delivery. While developing build scripts, practitioners may inadvertently introduce code smells, which are recurring patterns of poor coding practices that may lead to build failures or increase risk and technical debt. The goal of this study is to aid practitioners in avoiding code smells in build scripts through an empirical study of build scripts and issues on GitHub. We employed a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis. First, we conducted a qualitative analysis of 2000 build-script-related GitHub issues to understand recurring smells. Next, we developed a static analysis tool, Sniffer, to automatically detect code smells in 5882 build scripts of Maven, Gradle, CMake, and Make files, collected from 4877 open-source GitHub repositories. To assess Sniffer’s performance, we conducted a user study, where Sniffer achieved higher precision, recall, and F-score. We identified 13 code smell categories, with a total of 10,895 smell occurrences, where 3184 were in Maven, 1214 in Gradle, 337 in CMake, and 6160 in Makefiles.Our analysis revealed that Insecure URLs were the most prevalent code smell in Maven build scripts, while Hardcoded Paths/URLs were commonly observed in both Gradle and CMake scripts. Wildcard Usage emerged as the most frequent smell in Makefiles. The co-occurrence analysis revealed strong associations between specific smell pairs of Hardcoded Paths/URLs with Duplicates, and Inconsistent Dependency Management with Empty or Incomplete Tags, which indicate potential underlying issues in the build script structure and maintenance practices. Based on our findings, we also recommended strategies to remove code smells in build scripts to improve the efficiency, reliability, and maintainability of software projects. Mahzabin Tamanna, Yash Chandrani, Matthew Burrows, Brandon Wroblewski, Laurie A. Williams, Dominik Wermke |
ASE | 3 |