Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Lambros Karkazis

dblp:225/0382 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—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
Programming languages and type systems · 50% Empirical software engineering · 50%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › developer studies
developer productivity study
0.312018
Assessing the type annotation burden · ASE 2018
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.312018
Assessing the type annotation burden · ASE 2018
Programming languages and type systems › type systems
type annotations
0.312018
Assessing the type annotation burden · ASE 2018
Programming languages and type systems
type checking
0.312018
Assessing the type annotation burden · ASE 2018

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

user study · 0.3qualitative analysis · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Assessing the type annotation burden
abstract
Type annotations provide a link between program variables and domain-specific types. When combined with a type system, these annotations can enable early fault detection. For type annotations to be cost-effective in practice, they need to be both accurate and affordable for developers. We lack, however, an understanding of how burdensome type annotation is for developers. Hence, this work explores three fundamental questions: 1) how accurately do developers make type annotations; 2) how long does a single annotation take; and, 3) if a system could automatically suggest a type annotation, how beneficial to accuracy are correct suggestions and how detrimental are incorrect suggestions? We present results of a study of 71 programmers using 20 random code artifacts that contain variables with physical unit types that must be annotated. Subjects choose a correct type annotation only 51% of the time and take an average of 136 seconds to make a single correct annotation. Our qualitative analysis reveals that variable names and reasoning over mathematical operations are the leading clues for type selection. We find that suggesting the correct type boosts accuracy to 73%, while making a poor suggestion decreases accuracy to 28%. We also explore what state-of-the-art automated type annotation systems can and cannot do to help developers with type annotations, and identify implications for tool developers.
John-Paul Ore, Sebastian G. Elbaum, Carrick Detweiler, Lambros Karkazis
ASE4