Paper Info
Title
Unit Of Measurement Libraries, Their Popularity And Suitability
Abstract
In scientific applications, physical quantities, and units of measurement are used regularly. If the inherent incompatibility between these units is not handled properly it can lead to potentially catastrophic problems. Although the risk of a miscalculation is high and the cost equally so, almost none of the major programming languages has support for physical quantities. We employed a systematic approach to examine and analyse available units of measurement (UoM) libraries. The search results were condensed into 38 libraries. These were the most comprehensive and well-developed, open-source libraries, chosen from approximately 3700 search results across seven repository hosting sites. Most libraries are implemented in a similar manner, but with varying features and evaluation strategies. Three developers and a scientist were interviewed and 91 practitioners of varying experiences from on-line forums were surveyed to explain their impressions of UoM libraries and their suitability. Our findings show several reasons for nonadoption, including insufficient awareness of UoM libraries, cumbersome in practice, specific performance concerns, and usage of development processes that exclude unit information We conclude with recommendations to UoM library creators derived from these observations. We also argue that so long as units are not part of the language, or not supported through an IDE extension, their use will be limited. Native language support allows for efficient unit conversion and static checking. While lightweight methods provide many benefits of UoM libraries with minimal overheads. Libraries are perhaps best suited to applications in which unit of measurement checking is desirable at run-time.
Year
DOI
Venue
2021
10.1002/spe.2926
SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE
Keywords
DocType
Volume
quantity pattern, units checking, units libraries, units of measurement, units survey
Journal
51
Issue
ISSN
Citations 
4
0038-0644
0
PageRank 
References 
Authors
0.34
0
3
Name
Order
Citations
PageRank
Steve McKeever132.48
Oscar Bennich‐Björkman200.34
Omar‐Alfred Salah300.34