CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Teaching and Learning ProgrammingLogic, programming, and type systemsSoftware Engineering Research

Contextualized Programming Language Documentation

Open access
Potter, Hannah, Madadi, Ardi, Just, René, Omar, Cyrus·2022·Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software
DOI 10.1145/3563835.3567654
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Learning the syntax and semantics of a new programming language is a challenge. It is common for learners to refer to language documentation many times and in many contexts as they build comfort and understanding. We review existing functional language documentation, finding that it tends to be organized according to the structure of the language. Each section interleaves narrative explanations, which introduce precise terminology that is then used consistently, with code examples. Sections often start with simpler special cases of a construct before considering it in full generality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3563835.3567654

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior work explored gallery-like exploration of visualization collections drawn from databases.

    “prior work explored gallery-like exploration of visualization collections drawn from databases [43], [53], [63].”

    From Considering Visualization Example Galleries (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Conclusion (section 8) describes contextualized programming-language documentation, and Code Examples (section 3.5) describes examples tailored to a programmer’s code. Searches for gallery-like exploration and database-derived visualization collections found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Andrew Bedford. 2017. Coqatoo: Generating Natural Language Ver- sions of Coq Proofs. CoRR abs/1712.03894 (2017). arXiv:1712.03894 http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03894 · arXiv
  2. Amy S. Bruckman and Elizabeth Edwards. 1999. Should we Leverage Natural-Language Knowledge? An Analysis of User Errors in a Natural- Language-Style Programming Language. In Proceeding of the CHI '99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: The CHI is the Limit, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 15-20, 1999. ACM. https://doi.org/10. 1145/302979.303040 · DOI
  3. Philip J. Guo. 2013. Online python tutor: embeddable web-based program visualization for cs education. In The 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE 2013, Denver, CO, USA, March 6-9, 2013. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445368 · DOI
  4. Mark Guzdial, Shriram Krishnamurthi, Juha Sorva, and Jan Vahrenhold. 2019. Notional Machines and Programming Language Semantics in Education (Dagstuhl Seminar 19281). Dagstuhl Reports 9, 7 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.9.7.1 · DOI
  5. Andrew Head, Codanda Appachu, Marti A. Hearst, and Björn Hart- mann. 2015. Tutorons: Generating context-relevant, on-demand ex- planations and demonstrations of online code. In 2015 IEEE Sympo- sium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VL/HCC 2015, Atlanta, GA, USA, October 18-22, 2015. IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2015.7356972 · DOI
  6. Andrew Head, Kyle Lo, Dongyeop Kang, Raymond Fok, Sam Skjons- berg, Daniel S. Weld, and Marti A. Hearst. 2021. Augmenting Scientific Papers with Just-in-Time, Position-Sensitive Definitions of Terms and Symbols. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, Article 413. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764. 3445648 · DOI
  7. Amanda M. Holland-Minkley, Regina Barzilay, and Robert L. Constable. 1999. Verbalization of High-Level Formal Proofs. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Eleventh Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, July 18-22, 1999, Orlando, Florida, USA. AAAI Press / The MIT Press. http: //www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/1999/aaai99-041.php
  8. Yea-Seul Kim, Jessica Hullman, Matthew Burgess, and Eytan Adar. 2016. SimpleScience: Lexical Simplification of Scientific Terminology. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016. The Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/ 10.18653/v1/d16-1114 · DOI
  9. Sam Lau, Ian Drosos, Julia M. Markel, and Philip J. Guo. 2020. The Design Space of Computational Notebooks: An Analysis of 60 Systems in Academia and Industry. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VL/HCC 2020, Dunedin, New Zealand, August 10-14, 2020. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC50065.2020. 9127201 · DOI
  10. Alexander LeClair, Siyuan Jiang, and Collin McMillan. 2019. A neural model for generating natural language summaries of program subrou- tines. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 25-31, 2019. IEEE / ACM. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00087 · DOI
  11. Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Simon, Ibrahim Albluwi, Brett A. Becker, Michail N. Giannakos, Amruth N. Kumar, Linda M. Ott, James Pa- terson, Michael James Scott, Judy Sheard, and Claudia Szabo. 2018. In- troductory programming: a systematic literature review. In Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Tech- nology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus, July 02-04, 2018. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295779 · DOI
  12. Briana B. Morrison. 2017. Dual Modality Code Explanations for Novices: Unexpected Results. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Confer- ence on International Computing Education Research, ICER 2017, Tacoma, WA, USA, August 18-20, 2017. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726. 3106191 · DOI
  13. Cyrus Omar and Jonathan Aldrich. 2018. Reasonably programmable literal notation. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2, ICFP (2018), 106:1ś106:32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236801 · DOI
  14. Cyrus Omar, Ian Voysey, Ravi Chugh, and Matthew A. Hammer. 2019. Live functional programming with typed holes. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 3, POPL (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290327 · DOI
  15. Cyrus Omar, Ian Voysey, Michael Hilton, Jonathan Aldrich, and Matthew A. Hammer. 2017. Hazelnut: a bidirectionally typed structure editor calculus. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2017, Paris, France, January 18-20, 2017. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3009837.3009900 · DOI
  16. Cyrus Omar, Ian Voysey, Michael Hilton, Joshua Sunshine, Claire Le Goues, Jonathan Aldrich, and Matthew A. Hammer. 2017. Toward Semantic Foundations for Program Editors. In 2nd Summit on Advances in Programming Languages, SNAPL 2017, May 7-10, 2017, Asilomar, CA, USA (LIPIcs, Vol. 71). Schloss Dagstuhl -Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2017.11 · DOI
  17. Yizhou Qian and James Lehman. 2017. Students' Misconceptions and Other Difficulties in Introductory Programming: A Literature Review. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Adrian E. Raftery, Hana Sevcikova, and Bernard W. Silverman. 2021. The vote Package: Single Transferable Vote and Other Electoral Sys- tems in R. R J. 13, 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2021-086 · DOI
  19. Xin Rong, Shiyan Yan, Stephen Oney, Mira Dontcheva, and Eytan Adar. 2016. CodeMend: Assisting Interactive Programming with Bimodal Embedding. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST 2016, Tokyo, Japan, October 16-19, 2016. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2984511.2984544 · DOI
  20. Nischal Shrestha, Colton Botta, Titus Barik, and Chris Parnin. 2022. Here we go again: why is it difficult for developers to learn another programming language? Commun. ACM 65, 3 (2022). https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3511062 · DOI
  21. Sean Stapleton, Yashmeet Gambhir, Alexander LeClair, Zachary Eber- hart, Westley Weimer, Kevin Leach, and Yu Huang. 2020. A Human Study of Comprehension and Code Summarization. In ICPC '20: 28th International Conference on Program Comprehension, Seoul, Republic of Korea, July 13-15, 2020. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3387904.3389258 · DOI
  22. Andreas Stefik, Susanna Siebert, Melissa Stefik, and Kim Slattery. 2011. An empirical comparison of the accuracy rates of novices using the quorum, perl, and randomo programming languages. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools, PLATEAU 2011, Portland, OR, USA, October 24, 2011. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2089155.2089159 · DOI
  23. Alaaeddin Swidan and Felienne Hermans. 2019. The Effect of Reading Code Aloud on Comprehension: An Empirical Study with School Students. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education, CompEd 2019, Chengdu,Sichuan, China, May 17-19, 2019. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3300115.3309504 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Considering Visualization Example Galleries

    Yang, J., McNutt, A. M., & Battle, L. (2024) · 2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) · doi:10.1109/vl/hcc60511.2024.00043 · Cited by 5 · see citing works

    “Studies have explored how documentation might be enhanced by supporting sustainable maintenance [22], annotation [21], automated creation [10], [17], [29], enhancements to the development environment [35], [47], among others.”
    Background

Authors
Potter, H., Madadi, A., Just, R., & Omar, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-11-29
Pages
1-15
DOI
10.1145/3563835.3567654
OpenAlex
W4310517599
Cited by
4
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3
FWCI
1.30
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software (Onward!) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Washington
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
programming language documentation, functional programming languages, language learning, syntax and semantics, documentation structure, code examples, terminology consistency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review