| Title |
A comparison of common programming languages used in bioinformatics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-9-82 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mathieu Fourment, Michael R Gillings |
| Abstract |
The performance of different programming languages has previously been benchmarked using abstract mathematical algorithms, but not using standard bioinformatics algorithms. We compared the memory usage and speed of execution for three standard bioinformatics methods, implemented in programs using one of six different programming languages. Programs for the Sellers algorithm, the Neighbor-Joining tree construction algorithm and an algorithm for parsing BLAST file outputs were implemented in C, C++, C#, Java, Perl and Python. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 17% |
| Japan | 2 | 8% |
| Peru | 1 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 4% |
| Austria | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 71% |
| Scientists | 6 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 586 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| France | 3 | <1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 17 | 3% |
| Unknown | 538 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 108 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 93 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 88 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 86 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 5% |
| Other | 75 | 13% |
| Unknown | 108 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 171 | 29% |
| Computer Science | 103 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 58 | 10% |
| Engineering | 26 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 3% |
| Other | 90 | 15% |
| Unknown | 118 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2023.
All research outputs
#889,162
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#59
of 7,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,440
of 173,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#1
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 173,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.