Few Versatile vs. Many Specialized Collections
While an integral part of all programming languages, the design of collection libraries is rarely studied. This work brie y reviews the collection libraries of 14 languages to identify possible design dimensions. Some languages have surprisingly few but versatile collections, while others have large libraries with many specialized collections. Based on the identified design dimensions, we argue that a small collection library with only a sequence, a map, and a set type are a suitable choice to facilitate exploratory programming. Such a design minimizes the number of decisions programmers have to make when dealing with collections, and it improves discoverability of collection operations. We further discuss techniques that make their implementation practical from a performance perspective. Based on these arguments, we conclude that languages which aim to support exploratory programming should strive for small and versatile collection libraries.
Tue 10 Apr Times are displayed in time zone: Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna change
14:30 - 16:00
|Do Java Programmers Write Better Python? – Studying Off-Language Code Quality on GitHub|
|The Fun of Being Wrong, or: The Game of Programmer vs. IDE|
|Few Versatile vs. Many Specialized Collections|
PX/18Pre-print Media Attached