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

Donald E. Wood

dblp:45/5342 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
software metrics
0.011985
Software Science Applied to APL · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985
Programming languages and type systems › very high level languages
APL
0.011985
Software Science Applied to APL · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985
Programming languages and type systems
language design
0.011985
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1985 Software Science Applied to APL
abstract
Previous 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