Users' preferences among different techniques for displaying the evaluation of LISP functions in an interactive debugger
Pages 45 - 50
Abstract
Two experiments investigated various techniques for displaying the evaluation of LISP functions in an interactive debugger. The studies examined three techniques of highlighting the flow of evaluation in a LISP function and two display formats for displaying LISP function information. The subjects in both experiments included highly experienced LISP programmers and occasional LISP users with moderate to little LISP experience. The dependent measure was the subjects' preference rating for each display technique. The results showed that occasional LISP users preferred range highlighting, an interlaced display of evaluation results, and a simultaneous display of called functions. However, expert LISP programmers had no differential preferences for highlighting techniques.
References
[1]
Boeker, H., Fislner, G. and Nieper, H. (1986). The Enhancement of Understanding through Visual Representations. Proceedings of the CHI'86 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York, 7, 235-239.
[2]
Brooke, J.B. and Duncan, K.D. (1980). Experimental studies of flowchart use at different stages of program debugging. Ergonomics, 23, 1057-1091.
[3]
Brown, J.S., and Burton, R.R. (1978). Diagnostic models of procedural bugs in basic mathematic skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155-192.
[4]
Du Boulay, B., O'Shea, T. and Monk, J. (1981). The black box inside the glass box: Presenting computing concepts to novices. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 14, 237-249.
[5]
Fitter, M. and Green, T.R.G. (1979). When do diagrams make good computer languages? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, I 1, 235-261.
[6]
de Groot, A.D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. Paris: Mouton.
[7]
Gould, J.D. (1975). Some psychological evidence on how people debug computer programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7, 151-182.
[8]
Kahney, H. (1983). What do novice programmers know about recursion. Proceedings of the CHI'83 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York, 7, 235-239.
[9]
Soloway, E. and Ehrlieh, K. (1984). Empirical studies of programming knowledge. IEEE Tramactiom on Software Engineering, 10, 595-609.
Index Terms
- Users' preferences among different techniques for displaying the evaluation of LISP functions in an interactive debugger
Recommendations
Foreign functions and common Lisp
The language Common Lisp is a standard dialect of Lisp which has been implemented on a wide range of machines by a variety of commercial and academic groups. One serious flaw in the Common Lisp standard, at least to many Common Lisp users on "general-...
Standard LISP (reprint)
When it was first formulated in 1960, (1) the programming language LISP was a truly machine independent language. However, even the earliest computer implementation encountered problems in input-output control and the handling of free variables which ...
On compiling embedded languages in LISP
LFP '80: Proceedings of the 1980 ACM conference on LISP and functional programmingIn INTERLISP we find a number of embedded languages such as the iterative statement and the pattern match facility in the CLISP package, the editor and makefile languages and so forth. We will in this paper concentrate on the problem of extending the ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 1988 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 01 May 1988
Check for updates
Qualifiers
- Article
Conference
CHI88
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
CHI '88 Paper Acceptance Rate 39 of 187 submissions, 21%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%
Upcoming Conference
CHI '25
- Sponsor:
- sigchi
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 303Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)44
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
Reflects downloads up to 23 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in