Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Donald E. Wood
dblp:45/5342
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1985
—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 |
Empirical software engineering · 62% Programming languages and type systems · 38% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering
software metrics |
0.0 | 1 | 1985 | Software Science Applied to APL · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985 |
Programming languages and type systems › very high level languages
APL |
0.0 | 1 | 1985 | Software Science Applied to APL · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985 |
Programming languages and type systems
language design |
0.0 | 1 | 1985 | Software Science Applied to APL · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical analysis · 0.0metric counting rules · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1985 | Software Science Applied to APLabstractPrevious attempts to apply Halstead's software metrics to APL have led to inconsistent and counter-intuitive results. This work is a further investigation into the application of software metrics to APL to try to resolve some of the inconsistency. The effect of variations in the counting rules on values calculated for the software metrics was studied. These rules were used to analyze a set of programs from a previous study. In addition, a large number of APL programs from a university environment were analyzed. Evidence is presented that verifies that APL has a higher language level than any other common programming language previously studied. Counting monadic and dyadic uses of the same APL symbol as an instance of a different operator was found to have a significant effect on the language level calculated for APL. However, decomposing derived APL functions into separate operators did not seem to have a significant effect on language level. Aaron H. Konstam, Donald E. Wood |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |