Are Scripting Languages Any Good? A Validation of Perl, Python, Rexx, and Tcl against C, C++, and Java

Advances in Computers

Volumn 57, Issue C, 2003, Pages 205-270

  Prechelt, Lutz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KARLSRUHE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54249099566     PISSN: 00652458     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2458(03)57005-X     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Albrecht A.J., and Gaffney Jr. J.E. Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: A software science validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-9 6 (1983) 639-648
2. Behrens C.A. Measuring the productivity of computer systems development activities with function points. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-9 6 (1983) 648-652
3. Boehm B.W. Software Engineering Economics (1981), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
4. Briot J.-P., Guerraoui R., and Löhr K.-P. Concurrency and distribution in object-oriented programming. ACM Computing Surveys 30 3 (1998) 291-329
5. Capers Jones, Software Productivity Research, Programming languages table, version 7. Available at http://www.spr.com/library/0langtbl.htm, 1996 (as of Feb. 2000)
6. Dijkstra E.W. Go To statement considered harmful. Communications of the ACM 11 3 (1968) 147-148
7. Ebrahimi A. Novice programmer errors: Language constructs and plan composition. Intl. J. of Human-Computer Studies 41 (1994) 457-480
8. Efron B., and Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 57 (1993), Chapman and Hall, New York, London
9. Hatton L. Does OO sync with how we think?. IEEE Software 15 3 (1998) 46-54
10. Hietaniemi J. perlhist: The Perl history records (1999), Unix Manual Page
11. Hudak P., Jones M.P., Haskell vs. Ada vs. C++ vs. awk vs. ... an experiment in software prototyping productivity. Technical report, Yale University, Dept. of CS, New Haven, CT, July 1994
12. Humphrey W.S. A Discipline for Software Engineering, SEI Series in Software Engineering (1995), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
13. Klepper R., and Bock D. Third and fourth generation language productivity differences. Communications of the ACM 38 9 (1995) 69-79
14. In: Koenemann-Belliveau J., Mohrer T.G., and Robertson S.P. (Eds). Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop, New Brunswick, NJ (1991), Ablex Publishing Corp
15. Lewis J.A., Henry S.M., Kafura D.G., and Schulman R.S. On the relationship between the object-oriented paradigm and software reuse: An empirical investigation. J. of Object-Oriented Programming (1992)
16. Lutz M. Programming Python (2001), O'Reilly and Associates
17. Miller G.A. The magic number seven, plus or minus two. The Psychological Review 63 2 (1956) 81-97
18. Ousterhout J.K. Scripting: Higher-level programming for the 21st century. IEEE Computer 31 3 (1998) 23-30
19. Philippsen M., Imperative concurrent object-oriented languages. Technical Report TR-95/50, International Computer Science Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA, August 1995
20. Prechelt L., An empirical comparison of C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx, and Tcl for a search/string-processing program. Technical Report 2000-5, Fakultät für Informatik, Universität Karlsruhe, Germany, March 2000. ftp.ira.uka.de
21. Prechelt L., Unger B., A controlled experiment on the effects of PSP training: Detailed description and evaluation. Technical Report 1/1999, Fakultät für Informatik, Universität Karlsruhe, Germany, March 1999. Available at ftp.ira.uka.de
22. Scanlan D.A. Structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode: An experimental comparison. IEEE Software 6 2 (1989) 8-36
23. Shiffrin R.M., and Nosofsky R.M. Seven plus or minus two: A commentary on capacity limiations. Psychological Review 101 2 (1994) 357-361
24. Wall L., Christiansen T., and Orwant J. Programming Perl (2000), O'Reilly and Associates
25. Walston C.E., and Felix C.P. A method of programming measurement and estimation. IBM Systems Journal 16 1 (1977) 54-73