Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
W. R. Edwards Jr.
dblp:38/3854
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1994
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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 |
Empirical software engineering · 44% Software maintenance and evolution · 44% Programming languages and type systems · 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
program comprehension |
0.0 | 1 | 1994 | Complexity Measures for Rule-Based Programs · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 1994 |
Empirical software engineering › software metrics
software complexity metrics |
0.0 | 1 | 1994 | Complexity Measures for Rule-Based Programs · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 1994 |
Programming languages and type systems › programming paradigms
rule-based programming |
0.0 | 1 | 1994 | Complexity Measures for Rule-Based Programs · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 1994 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
pilot study · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | Complexity Measures for Rule-Based ProgramsabstractSoftware complexity measures are quantitative estimates of the amount of effort required by a programmer to comprehend a piece of code. Many measures have been designed for standard procedural languages, but little work has been done to apply software complexity concepts to nontraditional programming paradigms. This paper presents a collection of software complexity measures that were specifically designed to quantify the conceptual complexity of rule-based programs. These measures are divided into two classes: bulk measures, which estimate complexity by examining aspects of program size, and rule measures, which gauge complexity based on the ways in which program rules interact with data and other rules. A pilot study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of these measures. Several measures were found to correlate well with the study participants' ratings of program difficulty and the time required by them to answer questions that required comprehension of program elements. The physical order of program rules was also shown to affect comprehension. The authors conclude that the development of software complexity measures for particular programming paradigms may lead to better tools for managing program development and predicting maintenance effort in nontraditional programming environments.> Michael B. O'Neal, W. R. Edwards Jr. |
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. | 2 |