Software engineers have developed sophisticated “object‐oriented” programming environments that are intended to make the reuse of program code easy. Experience has shown that these environments can be improved: Even very experienced programmers have problems in locating and comprehending code for reuse. Programs cannot be modified as readily as had been anticipated. We describe the problems in terms of “cognitive dimensions” of notational systems and show how improved support for opportunistic design may be achieved. A central tenet is that programmers are not at present able to externalize enough of their knowledge about a program. We propose a scheme for attaching a “description level” in which arbitrary attributes and relationships can be recorded in a “browsable” form. Our conclusions stress improving the means for programmers to represent facts rather than the provision of predefined knowledge bases.

In this paper, we attempt to clarify both the terminology used to classify programming languages and the nature of the classification itself. We feel that the current terminology and classification as captured in the literature is out of balance with the way that subject programming languages are used. We consider the accessibility of the computational model and the importance of the implementation language and suggest that a re-appraisal in this context will produce a better characterisation of both the programming language styles and their labels.

Abstract In the Unix environment there are a number of debugging tools. None are universally popular and many programmers choose not to use any of them at all. In this paper we present a study of existing debuggers. We highlight a number of reasons why they may not be popular and we discuss some of the features that programmers look for in a debugging aid. Finally, we report on the development of a new screen‐based interface, JDB, and some informal results of its usage.