Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Comparative Studies of 10 Programming Languages within 10 Diverse Criteria -- a Team 7 COMP6411-S10 Term Report

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1009.0305 v1 pith:ZH737AH6 submitted 2010-09-01 cs.PL

Sleiman Rabah , Jiang Li , Mingzhi Liu , Yuanwei Lai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.PL
keywords languagesprogrammingsomewillcriterionlanguageotherabstraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

There are many programming languages in the world today.Each language has their advantage and disavantage. In this paper, we will discuss ten programming languages: C++, C#, Java, Groovy, JavaScript, PHP, Schalar, Scheme, Haskell and AspectJ. We summarize and compare these ten languages on ten different criterion. For example, Default more secure programming practices, Web applications development, OO-based abstraction and etc. At the end, we will give our conclusion that which languages are suitable and which are not for using in some cases. We will also provide evidence and our analysis on why some language are better than other or have advantages over the other on some criterion.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Enhancing Software Maintenance: A Learning to Rank Approach for Co-changed Method Identification

    cs.SE 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A random forest learning-to-rank model using past co-change history and code features ranks co-changed methods with NDCG@5 of 0.84, but its edge over a historical frequency baseline is only 4.7%.

Pith tools