Method Names in Jupyter Notebooks: An Exploratory Study
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:72NHB3OArecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
Method names play an important role in communicating the purpose and behavior of their functionality. Research has shown that high-quality names significantly improve code comprehension and the overall maintainability of software. However, these studies primarily focus on naming practices in traditional software development. There is limited research on naming patterns in Jupyter Notebooks, a popular environment for scientific computing and data analysis. In this exploratory study, we analyze the naming practices found in 691 methods across 384 Jupyter Notebooks, focusing on three key aspects: naming style conventions, grammatical composition, and the use of abbreviations and acronyms. Our findings reveal distinct characteristics of notebook method names, including a preference for conciseness and deviations from traditional naming patterns. We identified 68 unique grammatical patterns, with only 55.57% of methods beginning with a verb. Further analysis revealed that half of the methods with return statements do not start with a verb. We also found that 30.39% of method names contain abbreviations or acronyms, representing mathematical or statistical terms and image processing concepts, among others. We envision our findings contributing to developing specialized tools and techniques for evaluating and recommending high-quality names in scientific code and creating educational resources tailored to the notebook development community.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.