MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184068421 · doi:10.1142/s0218194021500327

An Extensible Compiler for Implementing Software Design Patterns as Concise Language Constructs

2021· article· en· W3184068421 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware design patternComputer scienceStructural patternDesign patternProgramming languageCompilerSoftware designSoftware engineeringSoftwareSoftware development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design patterns are generic solutions to common programming problems. Design patterns represent a typical example of design reuse. However, implementing design patterns can lead to several problems, such as programming overhead and traceability. Existing research introduced several approaches to alleviate the implementation issues of design patterns. Nevertheless, existing approaches pose different implementation restrictions and require programmers to be aware of how design patterns should be implemented. Such approaches make the source code more prone to faults and defects. In addition, existing design pattern implementation approaches limit programmers to apply specific scenarios of design patterns (e.g. class-level), while other approaches require scattering implementation code snippets throughout the program. Such restrictions negatively impact understanding, tracing, or reusing design patterns. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to support the implementation of software design patterns as an extensible Java compiler. Our approach allows developers to use concise, easy-to-use language constructs to apply design patterns in their code. In addition, our approach allows the application of design patterns in different scenarios. We illustrate our approach using three commonly used design patterns, namely Singleton, Observer and Decorator. We show, through illustrative examples, how our design pattern constructs can significantly simplify implementing design patterns in a flexible, reusable and traceable manner. Moreover, our design pattern constructs allow class-level and instance-level implementations of design patterns.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it