↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of common programming languages used in bioinformatics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
24 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
589 Mendeley
citeulike
29 CiteULike
connotea
4 Connotea
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

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 589 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 541 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 110 19%
Student > Bachelor 93 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 88 15%
Student > Master 86 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 5%
Other 77 13%
Unknown 106 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 171 29%
Computer Science 104 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 61 10%
Engineering 26 4%
Social Sciences 20 3%
Other 91 15%
Unknown 116 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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
#842,769
of 24,588,574 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#57
of 7,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,320
of 165,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#1
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,588,574 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 7,556 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 165,153 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 37 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.