Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Rüdiger Lincke
dblp:l/RudigerLincke
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 5 · 1 first-author
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
3 papers |
Software maintenance and evolution · 47% Program analysis · 30% Empirical software engineering · 22% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program analysis
program analysis infrastructure |
0.1 | 2 | 2007 | An Extensible Metamodel for Program Analysis (abstract only) · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2007 An Extensible Meta-Model for Program Analysis · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2007 |
Software maintenance and evolution
refactoring |
0.1 | 2 | 2007 | An Extensible Metamodel for Program Analysis (abstract only) · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2007 An Extensible Meta-Model for Program Analysis · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2007 |
Empirical software engineering
software metrics |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Comparing software metrics tools · ISSTA 2008 |
Empirical software engineering › software evaluation
tool evaluation |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Comparing software metrics tools · ISSTA 2008 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
software metrics · 0.1quality model · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | Comparing software metrics toolsabstractThis paper shows that existing software metric tools interpret and implement the definitions of object-oriented software metrics differently. This delivers tool-dependent metrics results and has even implications on the results of analyses based on these metrics results. In short, the metrics-based assessment of a software system and measures taken to improve its design differ considerably from tool to tool. To support our case, we conducted an experiment with a number of commercial and free metrics tools. We calculated metrics values using the same set of standard metrics for three software systems of different sizes. Measurements show that, for the same software system and metrics, the metrics values are tool depended. We also defined a (simple) software quality model for "maintainability" based on the metrics selected. It defines a ranking of the classes that are most critical wrt. maintainability. Measurements show that even the ranking of classes in a software system is metrics tool dependent. Rüdiger Lincke, Jonas Lundberg, Welf Löwe |
ISSTA | 1 |
| 2007 | An Extensible Meta-Model for Program AnalysisabstractSoftware maintenance tools for program analysisand refactoring rely on a meta-model capturing the relevantproperties of programs. However, what is considered relevantmay change when the tools are extended with new analyses andrefactorings, and new programming languages. This paper proposesa language independent meta-model and an architecture toconstruct instances thereof, which is extensible for new analyses,refactorings, and new front-ends of programming languages. Dueto the loose coupling between analysis-, refactoring-, and frontend-components, new components can be added independentlyand reuse existing ones. Two maintenance tools implementingthe meta-model and the architecture, VIZZANALYZER and XDEVELOP,serve as a proof of concept. Dennis Strein, Rüdiger Lincke, Jonas Lundberg, Welf Löwe |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |
| 2007 | An Extensible Metamodel for Program Analysis (abstract only)abstractSoftware maintenance tools for program analysis and refactoring rely on a metamodel capturing the relevant properties of programs. However, what is considered relevant may change when the tools are extended with new analyses, refactorings, and new programming languages. This paper proposes a language independent metamodel and an architecture to construct instances thereof, which is extensible for new analyses, refactorings, and new front-ends of programming languages. Due to the loose coupling between analysis, refactoring, and front-end components, new components can be added independently and reuse existing ones. Two maintenance tools implementing the metamodel and the architecture, VizzAnalyzer and X-develop, serve as proof of concept. Dennis Strein, Rüdiger Lincke, Jonas Lundberg, Welf Löwe |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |
| 2006 | An Extensible Meta-Model for Program AnalysisabstractSoftware maintenance tools for program-analysis and refactoring rely on a meta-model capturing the relevant properties of programs. However, what is considered relevant may change when the tools are extended with new analyses and refactorings, and new programming languages. This paper proposes a language independent meta-model and an architecture to construct instances thereof which is extensible for new analyses, refactorings, and new front-ends of programming languages. Due to the loose coupling between analysis-, refactoring-, and front-end-components, new components can be added independently and reuse existing ones. Two maintenance tools implementing the meta-model and the architecture, VizzAnalyzer and X-DEVELOP, serve as a proof of concept Dennis Strein, Rüdiger Lincke, Jonas Lundberg, Welf Löwe |
ICSM | 2 |
| 2005 | A Qualitative Evaluation of a Software Development and Re-Engineering ProjectabstractThe VizzAnalyzer is a framework for analyses and visualizations of software. It has been developed over years, to a great deal by students and PhD students. In between it has been re-engineered to improve the software quality. In this paper, we publish the results of the software quality measurements over different versions of the VizzAnalyzer framework with well established quality metrics. Some metrics uncover qualities we were aiming at in our re-engineering, e.g. maintainability, some others uncover qualities we were deliberately ignoring or did not even think about, e.g. good "object-orientedness". Our measurements validate our expectation: the former metrics significantly improve over the versions whereas the latter contain positive as well as negative surprises Thomas Panas, Rüdiger Lincke, Jonas Lundberg, Welf Löwe |
SEW | 2 |