Camel case (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Camel case" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
1st place
1st place
207th place
136th place
153rd place
151st place
3rd place
3rd place
5,959th place
6,263rd place
1,518th place
1,072nd place
2nd place
2nd place
6th place
6th place
11th place
8th place
2,232nd place
1,903rd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
850th place
625th place
6,359th place
4,750th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
6,372nd place
5,946th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,295th place
1,196th place
low place
low place
4,153rd place
2,291st place
1,185th place
840th place
193rd place
152nd place
774th place
716th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
741st place
577th place
7th place
7th place
9,450th place
5,700th place

ablongman.com

wps.ablongman.com

acm.org

portal.acm.org

adaic.org

appfuse.org

issues.appfuse.org

archive.org

askoxford.com

bartleby.com

bitsavers.org

books.google.com

  • Fogarty, Mignon (27 October 2009). The Grammar Devotional: Daily Tips for Successful Writing from Grammar Girl. St. Martin's Publishing Group. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-4299-6440-1.
  • Brown, Adam (21 September 2018). Understanding and Teaching English Spelling: A Strategic Guide. Routledge. pp. 173–174. ISBN 978-1-351-62186-1.
  • Dreyer, Benjamin (4 August 2020). Dreyer's English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style. Random House Publishing Group. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-8129-8571-9.

c2.com

doi.org

  • Strachey, Christopher (October 1965). "A General Purpose Macrogenerator". Computer Journal. 8 (3): 225–241. doi:10.1093/comjnl/8.3.225.
  • Niklaus Wirth (2007). "Modula-2 and Oberon". Proceedings of the third ACM SIGPLAN conference on History of programming languages. HOPL III - San Diego. pp. 3-1–3-10. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.91.1447. doi:10.1145/1238844.1238847. ISBN 9781595937667. S2CID 1918928.
  • Bonita Sharif; Jonathan I. Maletic (2010). "An Eye Tracking Study on camelCase and under_score Identifier Styles". 2010 IEEE 18th International Conference on Program Comprehension. IEEE. pp. 196–205. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.421.6137. doi:10.1109/ICPC.2010.41. ISBN 978-1-4244-7604-6. S2CID 14170019. (download PDF). An empirical study to determine if identifier-naming conventions (i.e., camelCase and under_score) affect code comprehension is presented. An eye tracker is used to capture quantitative data from human subjects during an experiment. The intent of this study is to replicate a previous study published at ICPC 2009 (Binkley et al.) that used a timed response test method to acquire data. The use of eye-tracking equipment gives additional insight and overcomes some limitations of traditional data gathering techniques. Similarities and differences between the two studies are discussed. One main difference is that subjects were trained mainly in the underscore style and were all programmers. While results indicate no difference in accuracy between the two styles, subjects recognize identifiers in the underscore style more quickly.

everything2.com

google.github.io

groups.google.com

kent.edu

cs.kent.edu

  • Bonita Sharif; Jonathan I. Maletic (2010). "An Eye Tracking Study on camelCase and under_score Identifier Styles". 2010 IEEE 18th International Conference on Program Comprehension. IEEE. pp. 196–205. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.421.6137. doi:10.1109/ICPC.2010.41. ISBN 978-1-4244-7604-6. S2CID 14170019. (download PDF). An empirical study to determine if identifier-naming conventions (i.e., camelCase and under_score) affect code comprehension is presented. An eye tracker is used to capture quantitative data from human subjects during an experiment. The intent of this study is to replicate a previous study published at ICPC 2009 (Binkley et al.) that used a timed response test method to acquire data. The use of eye-tracking equipment gives additional insight and overcomes some limitations of traditional data gathering techniques. Similarities and differences between the two studies are discussed. One main difference is that subjects were trained mainly in the underscore style and were all programmers. While results indicate no difference in accuracy between the two styles, subjects recognize identifiers in the underscore style more quickly.

microsoft.com

learn.microsoft.com

msdn.microsoft.com

msdn2.microsoft.com

newscientist.com

nytimes.com

pressbooks.pub

ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub

princeton.edu

accessibility.princeton.edu

psu.edu

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu

  • Niklaus Wirth (2007). "Modula-2 and Oberon". Proceedings of the third ACM SIGPLAN conference on History of programming languages. HOPL III - San Diego. pp. 3-1–3-10. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.91.1447. doi:10.1145/1238844.1238847. ISBN 9781595937667. S2CID 1918928.
  • Dave Binkley; Marcia Davis; Dawn Lawrie; Christopher Morrell (2009). "To CamelCase or Under_score". IEEE 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension, 2009. ICPC '09. IEEE: 158–167. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.158.9499. In terms of camel-cased identifiers, this has a greater impact on identifiers that include short words and especially acronyms. For example, consider the acronym ID found in the identifier kIOuterIIDPath. Because of the run of uppercase letters, the task of reading kIOuterIIDPath, in particular the identification of the word ID, is more difficult.
  • Dave Binkley; Marcia Davis; Dawn Lawrie; Christopher Morrell (2009). "To CamelCase or Under_score". IEEE 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension, 2009. ICPC '09. IEEE: 158–167. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.158.9499. The experiment builds on past work of others who study how readers of natural language perform such tasks. Results indicate that camel casing leads to higher accuracy among all subjects regardless of training, and those trained in camel casing are able to recognize identifiers in the camel case style faster than identifiers in the underscore style.
  • Bonita Sharif; Jonathan I. Maletic (2010). "An Eye Tracking Study on camelCase and under_score Identifier Styles". 2010 IEEE 18th International Conference on Program Comprehension. IEEE. pp. 196–205. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.421.6137. doi:10.1109/ICPC.2010.41. ISBN 978-1-4244-7604-6. S2CID 14170019. (download PDF). An empirical study to determine if identifier-naming conventions (i.e., camelCase and under_score) affect code comprehension is presented. An eye tracker is used to capture quantitative data from human subjects during an experiment. The intent of this study is to replicate a previous study published at ICPC 2009 (Binkley et al.) that used a timed response test method to acquire data. The use of eye-tracking equipment gives additional insight and overcomes some limitations of traditional data gathering techniques. Similarities and differences between the two studies are discussed. One main difference is that subjects were trained mainly in the underscore style and were all programmers. While results indicate no difference in accuracy between the two styles, subjects recognize identifiers in the underscore style more quickly.

purdue.edu

www2.tech.purdue.edu

python.org

legacy.python.org

python.org

scala-lang.org

docs.scala-lang.org

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

  • Niklaus Wirth (2007). "Modula-2 and Oberon". Proceedings of the third ACM SIGPLAN conference on History of programming languages. HOPL III - San Diego. pp. 3-1–3-10. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.91.1447. doi:10.1145/1238844.1238847. ISBN 9781595937667. S2CID 1918928.
  • Bonita Sharif; Jonathan I. Maletic (2010). "An Eye Tracking Study on camelCase and under_score Identifier Styles". 2010 IEEE 18th International Conference on Program Comprehension. IEEE. pp. 196–205. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.421.6137. doi:10.1109/ICPC.2010.41. ISBN 978-1-4244-7604-6. S2CID 14170019. (download PDF). An empirical study to determine if identifier-naming conventions (i.e., camelCase and under_score) affect code comprehension is presented. An eye tracker is used to capture quantitative data from human subjects during an experiment. The intent of this study is to replicate a previous study published at ICPC 2009 (Binkley et al.) that used a timed response test method to acquire data. The use of eye-tracking equipment gives additional insight and overcomes some limitations of traditional data gathering techniques. Similarities and differences between the two studies are discussed. One main difference is that subjects were trained mainly in the underscore style and were all programmers. While results indicate no difference in accuracy between the two styles, subjects recognize identifiers in the underscore style more quickly.

shiningstar.net

sluug.org

twiki.org

unitedhealthgroup.com

web.archive.org

wired.com