English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Concurrency has been rapidly gaining importance in general-purpose computing,caused by the recent turn towards multicore processing architectures. As aresult, an increasing number of developers have to learn to write concurrentprograms, a task that is known to be hard even for the expert. Languagedesigners are therefore working on languages that promise to make concurrentprogramming "easier" than using traditional thread libraries. However, theclaim that a new language is more usable than another cannot be supported bypurely theoretical considerations, but calls for empirical studies. In thispaper, we present the design of a study to compare concurrent programminglanguages with respect to comprehending and debugging existing programs andwriting correct new programs. A critical challenge for such a study is avoidingthe bias that might be introduced during the training phase and wheninterpreting participants' solutions. We address these issues by the use ofself-study material and an evaluation scheme that exposes any subjectivedecisions of the corrector, or eliminates them altogether. We apply our designto a comparison of two object-oriented languages for concurrency, multithreadedJava and SCOOP (Simple Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming), in an academicsetting. We obtain results in favor of SCOOP even though the study participantshad previous training in Java Threads.

A Comparative Study of the Usability of Two Object-oriented Concurrent Programming Languages