1981
DOI: 10.1002/spe.4380110102
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of programming languages for software engineering

Abstract: Four programming languages (Fortran, Cobol, Jovial and the proposed DoD standard) are compared in the light of modern ideas of good software engineering practice. The comparison begins by identifying a core for each language that captures the essential properties of the language and the intent of the language designers. These core languages then serve as a basis for the discussion of the language philosophies and the impact of the language on gross program organization and on the use of individual statements.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To provide focus, we used the model to explore concepts in object-oriented and imperative languages that are commonly used; that is, we examined modern programming languages and identified a set of core features, as was done in [31]. We used these core features to demonstrate the relation between software engineering research and programming languages.…”
Section: Methodology and Resources Usedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To provide focus, we used the model to explore concepts in object-oriented and imperative languages that are commonly used; that is, we examined modern programming languages and identified a set of core features, as was done in [31]. We used these core features to demonstrate the relation between software engineering research and programming languages.…”
Section: Methodology and Resources Usedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To provide focus, we used the model to explore concepts in object-oriented and imperative languages that are commonly used; that is, we examined modern programming languages and identified a set of core features, as was done in Shaw et al [1978]. We used these core features to demonstrate the relation between software engineering research and programming languages.…”
Section: Methodology and Resources Usedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…AlGhamdi and Urban (1993) propose 12 areas of analysis for comparing and assessing programming languages, including philosophy of the design, defined as the intent of the designers when designing the language. Shaw et al (1981) assess the software engineering characteristics of multiple languages by rating the core of each language that captures the essential properties of a language and the intent of language designers about its intended use. Whatever term is used, this factor can play a pivotal role in language selection.…”
Section: Supports Target Application Domainmentioning
confidence: 99%