语言设计中人为因素决定的证据基础是什么?编程语言研讨会的实证研究

A. Stefik, Stefan Hanenberg, Mark McKenney, A. Andrews, Srinivas Kalyan Yellanki, Susanna Siebert
{"title":"语言设计中人为因素决定的证据基础是什么?编程语言研讨会的实证研究","authors":"A. Stefik, Stefan Hanenberg, Mark McKenney, A. Andrews, Srinivas Kalyan Yellanki, Susanna Siebert","doi":"10.1145/2597008.2597154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the programming language design community has engaged in rigorous debate on the role of empirical evidence in the design of general purpose programming languages. Some scholars contend that the language community has failed to embrace a form of evidence that is non-controversial in other disciplines (e.g., medicine, biology, psychology, sociology, physics, chemistry), while others argue that a science of language design is unrealistic. While the discussion will likely persist for some time, we begin here a systematic evaluation of the use of empirical evidence with human users, documenting, paper-by-paper, the evidence provided for human factors decisions, beginning with 359 papers from the workshops PPIG, Plateau, and ESP. This preliminary work provides the following contributions: an analysis of the 1) overall quantity and quality of empirical evidence used in the workshops, and of the 2) overall significant challenges to reliably coding academic papers. We hope that, once complete, this long-term research project will serve as a practical catalog designers can use when evaluating the impact of a language feature on human users.","PeriodicalId":6853,"journal":{"name":"2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)","volume":"3 1","pages":"223-231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is the foundation of evidence of human factors decisions in language design? an empirical study on programming language workshops\",\"authors\":\"A. Stefik, Stefan Hanenberg, Mark McKenney, A. Andrews, Srinivas Kalyan Yellanki, Susanna Siebert\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2597008.2597154\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, the programming language design community has engaged in rigorous debate on the role of empirical evidence in the design of general purpose programming languages. Some scholars contend that the language community has failed to embrace a form of evidence that is non-controversial in other disciplines (e.g., medicine, biology, psychology, sociology, physics, chemistry), while others argue that a science of language design is unrealistic. While the discussion will likely persist for some time, we begin here a systematic evaluation of the use of empirical evidence with human users, documenting, paper-by-paper, the evidence provided for human factors decisions, beginning with 359 papers from the workshops PPIG, Plateau, and ESP. This preliminary work provides the following contributions: an analysis of the 1) overall quantity and quality of empirical evidence used in the workshops, and of the 2) overall significant challenges to reliably coding academic papers. We hope that, once complete, this long-term research project will serve as a practical catalog designers can use when evaluating the impact of a language feature on human users.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"223-231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2597008.2597154\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2597008.2597154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

近年来,编程语言设计界就经验证据在通用编程语言设计中的作用展开了激烈的辩论。一些学者认为,语言学界未能接受一种在其他学科(如医学、生物学、心理学、社会学、物理学、化学)中没有争议的证据形式,而另一些学者则认为语言设计科学是不现实的。虽然讨论可能会持续一段时间,但我们从这里开始对人类用户使用的经验证据进行系统评估,一页一页地记录人为因素决策提供的证据,从PPIG、Plateau和ESP研讨会的359篇论文开始。这项初步工作提供了以下贡献:分析1)研讨会中使用的经验证据的总体数量和质量,以及2)对学术论文进行可靠编码的总体重大挑战。我们希望,一旦完成,这个长期的研究项目将作为一个实用的目录,设计师可以在评估语言特性对人类用户的影响时使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What is the foundation of evidence of human factors decisions in language design? an empirical study on programming language workshops
In recent years, the programming language design community has engaged in rigorous debate on the role of empirical evidence in the design of general purpose programming languages. Some scholars contend that the language community has failed to embrace a form of evidence that is non-controversial in other disciplines (e.g., medicine, biology, psychology, sociology, physics, chemistry), while others argue that a science of language design is unrealistic. While the discussion will likely persist for some time, we begin here a systematic evaluation of the use of empirical evidence with human users, documenting, paper-by-paper, the evidence provided for human factors decisions, beginning with 359 papers from the workshops PPIG, Plateau, and ESP. This preliminary work provides the following contributions: an analysis of the 1) overall quantity and quality of empirical evidence used in the workshops, and of the 2) overall significant challenges to reliably coding academic papers. We hope that, once complete, this long-term research project will serve as a practical catalog designers can use when evaluating the impact of a language feature on human users.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信