Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Bartosz Ropski
dblp:121/2786
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1
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 · 87% Empirical software engineering · 13% |
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 search |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Sando: an extensible local code search framework · SIGSOFT FSE 2012 |
Software maintenance and evolution › code search
semantic code search |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Sando: an extensible local code search framework · SIGSOFT FSE 2012 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.0 | 1 | 2012 | Sando: an extensible local code search framework · SIGSOFT FSE 2012 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
lexical matching · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Sando: an extensible local code search frameworkabstractDevelopers heavily rely on Local Code Search (LCS)---the execution of a text-based search on a single code base---to find starting points in software maintenance tasks. While LCS approaches commonly used by developers are based on lexical matching and often result in failed searches or irrelevant results, developers have not yet migrated to the various research approaches that have made significant advancements in LCS. We hypothesize that two of the major reasons for this lack of migration are as follows. First, developers do not know which approach is the best, due to a lack of comparative field studies and the discrepancies in the underlying LCS process that these research approaches address. Second, developers lack access to a stable implementation of most of the research approaches. To address these issues, we studied a number of LCS approaches, distilled the general component structure underlying these approaches and, based on this structure, developed a LCS tool and framework, called Sando. Currently used by developers at ABB, Inc. and elsewhere, Sando also supports the flexible extension of its components to rapidly disseminate research advancements, and allows for user-based evaluation of competing approaches. David C. Shepherd, Kostadin Damevski, Bartosz Ropski, Thomas Fritz 0001 |
SIGSOFT FSE | 3 |