Figure 8: Acceptance Rates for Men and Women Using Matched Data by File Type for Programming Languages (A) and Non-Programming Languages (B).

doi 10.7717/peerjcs.111/fig-8
Full Text
Abstract

Available in full text

Date

Unknown

Authors

Unknown

Publisher

PeerJ

Related search

Fast Type Reconstruction for Dynamically Typed Programming Languages

2009English

Programming Languages for Mobile Code

ACM Computing Surveys
Computer ScienceTheoretical Computer Science
1997English

Programming Languages and Systems

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Computer ScienceTheoretical Computer Science
2012English

Automata, Languages and Programming

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Computer ScienceTheoretical Computer Science
2009English

Programming Languages and Systems

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Computer ScienceTheoretical Computer Science
2003English

Automata, Languages and Programming

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Computer ScienceTheoretical Computer Science
1989English

Programming Languages: History and Fundamentals

Mathematics of Computation
Computational MathematicsApplied MathematicsNumber TheoryAlgebra
1970English

E-Assessment Tools for Programming Languages: A Review

2018English

The Choice of Programming Primitives for SETL-like Programming Languages

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Computer ScienceTheoretical Computer Science
1986English

Amanote Research

Note-taking for researchers

Follow Amanote

© 2024 Amaplex Software S.P.R.L. All rights reserved.

Privacy PolicyRefund Policy