Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31452597›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary bioinformatics online2019

Comparing Ease of Programming in C++, Go, and Java for Implementing a Next-Generation Sequencing Tool.

Pascal Costanza, Charlotte Herzeel, Wilfried Verachtert

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary bioinformatics online, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pascal CostanzaExaScience Lab, IMEC vzw, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8894-3238
Charlotte HerzeelExaScience Lab, IMEC vzw, Leuven, Belgium.
Wilfried VerachtertExaScience Lab, IMEC vzw, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

elPrep is an extensible multithreaded software framework for efficiently processing Sequence Alignment/Map (SAM)/Binary Alignment/Map (BAM) files in next-generation sequencing pipelines. Similar to other SAM/BAM tools, a key challenge in elPrep is memory management, as such programs need to manipulate large amounts of data. We therefore investigated 3 programming languages with support for assisted or automated memory management for implementing elPrep, namely C++, Go, and Java. We implemented a nontrivial subset of elPrep in all 3 programming languages and compared them by benchmarking their runtime performance and memory use to determine the best language in terms of computational performance. In a previous article, we motivated why, based on these results, we eventually selected Go as our implementation language. In this article, we discuss the difficulty of achieving the best performance in each language in terms of programming language constructs and standard library support. While benchmarks are easy to objectively measure and evaluate, this is less obvious for assessing ease of programming. However, because we expect elPrep to be regularly modified and extended, this is an equally important aspect. We illustrate representative examples of challenges in all 3 languages, and give our opinion why we think that Go is a reasonable choice also in this light.

Indexed as

C++GoJavaNext-generation sequencingSAM/BAM filessequence analysis

Identifiers

PMID31452597
PMCPMC6698987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.