Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper discusses the application program interface (API). Most software projects reuse components exposed through APIs. In fact, current-day software development technologies are becoming inseparable from the large APIs they provide. An API is the interface to implemented functionality that developers can access to perform various tasks. APIs support code reuse, provide high-level abstractions that facilitate programming tasks, and help unify the programming experience. A study of obstacles that professional Microsoft developers faced when learning to use APIs uncovered challenges and resulting implications for API users and designers. The article focuses on the obstacles to learning an API. Although learnability is only one dimension of usability, there's a clear relationship between the two, in that difficult-to-use APIs are likely to be difficult to learn as well. Many API usability studies focus on situations where developers are learning to use an API. The author concludes that as APIs keep growing larger, developers will need to learn a proportionally smaller fraction of the whole. In such situations, the way to foster more efficient API learning experiences is to include more sophisticated means for developers to identify the information and the resources they need-even for well-designed and documented APIs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".