Bingnuo Chen

dblp:337/1045 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—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
Empirical software engineering · 67% Software maintenance and evolution · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
code readability
0.612022
How students choose names: A replication study · ASE 2022
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.612022
How students choose names: A replication study · ASE 2022
Empirical software engineering
identifier naming conventions
0.612022
How students choose names: A replication study · ASE 2022

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

survey · 0.6replication study · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 How students choose names: A replication study
abstract
Names of classes/methods/variables play an important role in code readability. To investigate how developers choose names, Feitelson et al. conducted an empirical survey and suggested a method to improve naming quality. We replicated their study, but limited the survey subjects to university students. Specifically, we conducted two experiments including 341 students from freshmen to seniors. The aim of the first experiment was to investigate the characteristics of the names given by students. The experimental results showed that the name length as well as the number of words contained in names increased with the grade and students have ambiguity in understanding variable names. The second experiment was to verify whether Feitelson et al.’s naming method can help improve the quality of the names given by students. The experimental results showed an improvement in naming quality for more than 67% of cases, which confirms the validity of the method for university students.
Qing Mi, Bingnuo Chen
ASE3