BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Miguel Goulão

Miguel Goulão appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Software Engineering

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2013arXiv

A Comparison of Maps Application Programming Interfaces

The development of web applications that manipulate geo-referenced information is often supported by Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), al-lowing a fast development cycle for high quality applications. APIs can be used by programmers with different expertise levels and choosing an adequate API may have a dramatic impact on the productivity achieved by those programmers. Our goal is to compare maps APIs with respect to their usability. We compare three different APIs: the Google Maps JavaScript API, the ArcGIS API for JavaScript, and the OpenLayers JavaScript Mapping Library. Our comparison is supported by a set of software metrics and is performed in two orthogonal ways: the comparison of three implementations of the same system prototype, each using one of the APIs under scrutiny; the comparison of the APIs specifications. The main results of the study are related to the size of the APIs, with the Google API being significantly smaller than the others.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

An overview of metrics-based approaches to support software components reusability assessment

Objective: To present an overview on the current state of the art concerning metrics-based quality evaluation of software components and component assemblies. Method: Comparison of several approaches available in the literature, using a framework comprising several aspects, such as scope, intent, definition technique, and maturity. Results: The identification of common shortcomings of current approaches, such as ambiguity in definition, lack of adequacy of the specifying formalisms and insufficient validation of current quality models and metrics for software components. Conclusions: Quality evaluation of components and component-based infrastructures presents new challenges to the Experimental Software Engineering community.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Do Software Languages Engineers Evaluate their Languages?

Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) can contribute to increment productivity, while reducing the required maintenance and programming expertise. We hypothesize that Software Languages Engineering (SLE) developers consistently skip, or relax, Language Evaluation. Based on the experience of engineering other types of software products, we assume that this may potentially lead to the deployment of inadequate languages. The fact that the languages already deal with concepts from the problem domain, and not the solution domain, is not enough to validate several issues at stake, such as its expressiveness, usability, effectiveness, maintainability, or even the domain expert's productivity while using them. We present a systematic review on articles published in top ranked venues, from 2001 to 2008, which report DSLs' construction, to characterize the common practice. This work confirms our initial hypothesis and lays the ground for the discussion on how to include a systematic approach to DSL evaluation in the SLE process.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Evidence-Based Comparison of Modularity Support Between Java and Object Teams

Background: Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is an emerging programming paradigm whose focus is about improving modularity, with an emphasis on the modularization of crosscutting concerns. Objective: The goal of this paper is to assess the extent to which an AOP language -ObjectTeams/Java (OT/J) -improves the modularity of a software system. This improvement has been claimed but, to the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first attempting to present quantitative evidence of it. Method: We compare functionally-equivalent implementations of the Gang-of-Four design patterns, developed in Java and OT/J, using software metrics. Results: The results of our comparison support the modularity improvement claims made in the literature. For six of the seven metrics used, the OT/J versions of the patterns obtained significantly better results. Limitations: This work uses a set of metrics originally defined for object-oriented (OO) systems. It may be the case that the metrics are biased, in that they were created in the context of OO programming (OOP), before the advent of AOP. We consider this comparison a stepping stone as, ultimately, we plan to assess the modularity improvements with paradigm independent metrics, which will conceivably eliminate the bias. Each individual example from the sample used in this paper is small. In future, we plan to replicate this experiment using larger systems, where the benefits of AOP may be more noticeable. Conclusion: This work contributes with evidence to fill gaps in the body of quantitative results supporting alleged benefits to software modularity brought by AOP languages, namely OT/J.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access