Efficiency of projectional editing: a controlled experiment

T. Berger, M. Völter, Hans Peter Jensen, Taweesap Dangprasert, J. Siegmund
{"title":"Efficiency of projectional editing: a controlled experiment","authors":"T. Berger, M. Völter, Hans Peter Jensen, Taweesap Dangprasert, J. Siegmund","doi":"10.1145/2950290.2950315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Projectional editors are editors where a user's editing actions directly change the abstract syntax tree without using a parser. They promise essentially unrestricted language com position as well as flexible notations, which supports aligning languages with their respective domain and constitutes an essential ingredient of model-driven development. Such editors have existed since the 1980s and gained widespread attention with the Intentional Programming paradigm, which used projectional editing at its core. However, despite the benefits, programming still mainly relies on editing textual code, where projectional editors imply a very different -- typically perceived as worse -- editing experience, often seen as the main challenge prohibiting their widespread adoption. We present an experiment of code-editing activities in a projectional editor, conducted with 19 graduate computer-science students and industrial developers. We investigate the effects of projectional editing on editing efficiency, editing strategies, and error rates -- each of which we also compare to conventional, parser-based editing. We observe that editing is efficient for basic-editing tasks, but that editing strategies and typical errors differ. More complex tasks require substantial experience and a better understanding of the abstract-syntax-tree structure -- then, projectional editing is also efficient. We also witness a tradeoff between fewer typing mistakes and an increased complexity of code editing.","PeriodicalId":20532,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290.2950315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

Abstract

Projectional editors are editors where a user's editing actions directly change the abstract syntax tree without using a parser. They promise essentially unrestricted language com position as well as flexible notations, which supports aligning languages with their respective domain and constitutes an essential ingredient of model-driven development. Such editors have existed since the 1980s and gained widespread attention with the Intentional Programming paradigm, which used projectional editing at its core. However, despite the benefits, programming still mainly relies on editing textual code, where projectional editors imply a very different -- typically perceived as worse -- editing experience, often seen as the main challenge prohibiting their widespread adoption. We present an experiment of code-editing activities in a projectional editor, conducted with 19 graduate computer-science students and industrial developers. We investigate the effects of projectional editing on editing efficiency, editing strategies, and error rates -- each of which we also compare to conventional, parser-based editing. We observe that editing is efficient for basic-editing tasks, but that editing strategies and typical errors differ. More complex tasks require substantial experience and a better understanding of the abstract-syntax-tree structure -- then, projectional editing is also efficient. We also witness a tradeoff between fewer typing mistakes and an increased complexity of code editing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
投影编辑的效率:一项对照实验
投影编辑器是这样一种编辑器,用户的编辑操作可以直接更改抽象语法树,而无需使用解析器。它们承诺基本上不受限制的语言com位置以及灵活的符号,这支持将语言与各自的领域对齐,并构成模型驱动开发的基本组成部分。自20世纪80年代以来,这种编辑器就已经存在,并以使用投影编辑为核心的故意编程范式获得了广泛的关注。然而,尽管有这些好处,编程仍然主要依赖于编辑文本代码,而投影编辑器意味着一种非常不同的——通常被认为是更糟糕的——编辑体验,通常被视为阻碍其广泛采用的主要挑战。我们提出了一个在投影编辑器中进行代码编辑活动的实验,由19名计算机科学研究生和工业开发人员进行。我们研究了投影编辑对编辑效率、编辑策略和错误率的影响——我们还将每一项都与传统的、基于解析器的编辑进行了比较。我们观察到,编辑对基本的编辑任务是有效的,但编辑策略和典型错误不同。更复杂的任务需要丰富的经验和对抽象语法树结构的更好理解——然后,投影编辑也是有效的。我们还见证了在更少的输入错误和增加的代码编辑复杂性之间的权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of fault localization techniques Model, execute, and deploy: answering the hard questions in end-user programming (showcase) Guided code synthesis using deep neural networks Automated change impact analysis between SysML models of requirements and design Sustainable software design
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1