Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMaking Quantum Computing Open: Lessons from Open-Source Projects
77
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Ruslan Shaydulin
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Quantum computing (QC) is an emerging computing paradigm with potential to revolutionize the field of computing. QC is a field that is quickly developing globally and has high barriers of entry. In this paper we explore both successful contributors to the field as well as wider QC community with the goal of understanding the backgrounds and training that helped them succeed. We gather data on 148 contributors to open-source quantum computing projects hosted on GitHub and survey 46 members of QC community. Our findings show that QC practitioners and enthusiasts have diverse backgrounds, with most of them having a PhD and trained in physics or computer science. We observe a lack of educational resources on quantum computing. Our goal for these findings is to start a conversation about how best to prepare the next generation of QC researchers and practitioners.
rate research
Read More
We want to analyze visually, to what extend team members and external developers contribute to open-source projects. This gives a high-level impression about collaboration in that projects. We achieve this by recording provenance of the development process and use graph drawing on the resulting provenance graph. Our graph drawings show, which developers are jointly changed the same files -- and to what extent -- which we show at Germanys COVID-19 exposure notification app Corona-Warn-App.
The development of scientific software is, more than ever, critical to the practice of science, and this is accompanied by a trend towards more open and collaborative efforts. Unfortunately, there has been little investigation into who is driving the evolution of such scientific software or how the collaboration happens. In this paper, we address this problem. We present an extensive analysis of seven open-source scientific software projects in order to develop an empirically-informed model of the development process. This analysis was complemented by a survey of 72 scientific software developers. In the majority of the projects, we found senior research staff (e.g. professors) to be responsible for half or more of commits (an average commit share of 72%) and heavily involved in architectural concerns (seniors were more likely to interact with files related to the build system, project meta-data, and developer documentation). Juniors (e.g.graduate students) also contribute substantially -- in one studied project, juniors made almost 100% of its commits. Still, graduate students had the longest contribution periods among juniors (with 1.72 years of commit activity compared to 0.98 years for postdocs and 4 months for undergraduates). Moreover, we also found that third-party contributors are scarce, contributing for just one day for the project. The results from this study aim to help scientists to better understand their own projects, communities, and the contributors behavior, while paving the road for future software engineering research
Software testing is one of the very important Quality Assurance (QA) components. A lot of researchers deal with the testing process in terms of tester motivation and how tests should or should not be written. However, it is not known from the recommendations how the tests are written in real projects. In this paper, the following was investigated: (i) the denotation of the word test in different natural languages; (ii) whether the number of occurrences of the word test correlates with the number of test cases; and (iii) what testing frameworks are mostly used. The analysis was performed on 38 GitHub open source repositories thoroughly selected from the set of 4.3M GitHub projects. We analyzed 20,340 test cases in 803 classes manually and 170k classes using an automated approach. The results show that: (i) there exists a weak correlation (r = 0.655) between the number of occurrences of the word test and the number of test cases in a class; (ii) the proposed algorithm using static file analysis correctly detected 97% of test cases; (iii) 15% of the analyzed classes used main() function whose represent regular Java programs that test the production code without using any third-party framework. The identification of such tests is very complex due to implementation diversity. The results may be leveraged to more quickly identify and locate test cases in a repository, to understand practices in customized testing solutions, and to mine tests to improve program comprehension in the future.
Communication is essential in software engineering. Especially in distributed open-source teams, communication needs to be supported by channels including mailing lists, forums, issue trackers, and chat systems. Yet, we do not have a clear understanding of which communication channels stakeholders in open-source projects use. In this study, we fill the knowledge gap by investigating a statistically representative sample of 400 GitHub projects. We discover the used communication channels by regular expressions on project data. We show that (1) half of the GitHub projects use observable communication channels; (2) GitHub Issues, e-mail addresses, and the modern chat system Gitter are the most common channels; (3) mailing lists are only in place five and have a lower market share than all modern chat systems combined.
Background: Meeting the growing industry demand for Data Science requires cross-disciplinary teams that can translate machine learning research into production-ready code. Software engineering teams value adherence to coding standards as an indication of code readability, maintainability, and developer expertise. However, there are no large-scale empirical studies of coding standards focused specifically on Data Science projects. Aims: This study investigates the extent to which Data Science projects follow code standards. In particular, which standards are followed, which are ignored, and how does this differ to traditional software projects? Method: We compare a corpus of 1048 Open-Source Data Science projects to a reference group of 1099 non-Data Science projects with a similar level of quality and maturity. Results: Data Science projects suffer from a significantly higher rate of functions that use an excessive numbers of parameters and local variables. Data Science projects also follow different variable naming conventions to non-Data Science projects. Conclusions: The differences indicate that Data Science codebases are distinct from traditional software codebases and do not follow traditional software engineering conventions. Our conjecture is that this may be because traditional software engineering conventions are inappropriate in the context of Data Science projects.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
