Yes, a +1 on the assessment of the paper. The research methodology does not
really result in any representative or generalisable data, so the conclusions
are unfounded.
(I have no experience with the journal, but my gut tells me to stay away from
it.)
--
Does this mail seem too brief? Sorry
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Hernán Morales Durand
wrote:
> Hi Serge,
>
> I didn't knew that paper. You are right, in the community analysis they seem
> to compare Bio* projects against Pharo and not BioSmalltalk. That's weird
> because the paper is very clear about BioSmalltalk is the name of
Hi Serge,
I didn't knew that paper. You are right, in the community analysis they
seem to compare Bio* projects against Pharo and not BioSmalltalk. That's
weird because the paper is very clear about BioSmalltalk is the name of the
library and Pharo is the supporting platform. I will contact the au
:)
This is supercool to see BioSmalltalk being mentioned and analysed.
May be hernan should contact the authors.
Hi Hernan,
apparently BioSmalltalk is the faster in the field of Bio* platforms
(BioPerl, BioPython, BioJava, ...) and the more trendy:
http://www.ijcseonline.org/spl_pub_paper/PID
