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

Myron Lipow

dblp:34/2274 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 1986
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 3 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
Empirical software engineering · 51% Software testing · 43% Software maintenance and evolution · 7%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › software metrics
fault density
0.021986
Comments on "Estimating the Number of Faults in Code" and Two Corrections to Published Data · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1986
Number of Faults per Line of Code · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1982
Software testing
software reliability
0.021986
Comments on "Estimating the Number of Faults in Code" and Two Corrections to Published Data · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1986
Number of Faults per Line of Code · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1982
Empirical software engineering
software metrics
0.011986
Comments on "Estimating the Number of Faults in Code" and Two Corrections to Published Data · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1986
Software maintenance and evolution › software quality assurance
software quality assessment
0.011976
Quantitative Evaluation of Software Quality · ICSE 1976

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

halstead software science · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1986 Comments on "Estimating the Number of Faults in Code" and Two Corrections to Published Data
abstract
The subject paper1concludes that number of faults per line of code is independent of whether Assembly language or a high order language (HOL) is used, contrary to previously published results by the author of this correspondence. However, the subject paper contains some technical errors and uses erroneous data. An explanation of the source of the erroneous data is given. Also, previously published information by the author of this correspondence on average number of operators plus operands per line of Assembly language code is corrected.
Myron Lipow
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
1982 Number of Faults per Line of Code
abstract
In this note, the number of faults or "bugs" per line of code is estimated based upon Halstead's software science relationships. This number is shown to be an increasing function of the number of lines of code in a program, a result in agreement with intuition and some current theories of complexity. The form of this function is investigated and an easy-to-use approximation is developed. An application to a moderately large software project is shown in which the predicted number of faults for program modules of various sizes agrees fairly well with the actual numbers of faults discovered.
Myron Lipow
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
1979 Prediction of software failures
Myron Lipow
J. Syst. Softw.1
1976 Quantitative Evaluation of Software Quality
Barry W. Boehm, John R. Brown, Myron Lipow
ICSE3