Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Emerging Trends in Software Architecture from the Practitioners Perspective: A Five Year Review

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Four cloud-native tools dominate practitioner architecture talks.

desk verdict Useful dataset and method, but the Kubernetes-dominance claim is not yet separable from the 43% KubeCon share of the corpus. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14554 v2 pith:PVYFAXZT submitted 2025-07-19 cs.SE

Ruoyu Su , Noman Ahmad , Matteo Esposito , Andrea Janes , Davide Taibi , Valentina Lenarduzzi This is my paper
classification cs.SE
keywords softwarearchitecturetrendspractitionerconferencestechnologyco-occurrencenetworkcentralityanalysisDevOpsphasescloud-nativelargelanguagemodelscommunitydetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a handful of cloud-native infrastructure technologies—Kubernetes, Cloud Native, Serverless, and Containers—have come to dominate how practitioners talk about software architecture, and that this talk is concentrated in the later DevOps phases. It analyzes 5,677 talk titles from eight practitioner conferences over 2020–2024, using large language models with human validation to extract technologies, purposes, and contexts. If the finding holds, academic research agendas and practitioner tooling investments should treat these few technologies as the gravitational center of current practice, while early-lifecycle phases like planning and coding are comparatively neglected. The result would matter because it gives a data-driven picture of where industry attention actually sits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a technology co-occurrence network built from talk titles: nodes are the 450 technologies, and edges count how often two technologies appear in the same title. On this graph the paper computes three classic centrality metrics—weighted degree (connection strength), closeness centrality (proximity to all other nodes), and betweenness centrality (role as a bridge)—and then applies the Louvain method for community detection to reveal cohesive clusters. This network machinery is what turns raw mention counts into a structural claim about which technologies are genuinely central, and it is what produces the five identified communities. The other central piece is the classification of each technology against the eight DevOps phases, which grounds the claim that practitioner attention skews to later pipeline stages.

What would settle it

Re-run the same extraction and network pipeline on a different corpus of practitioner talks that deliberately excludes KubeCon and other cloud-dominated conferences; if the centrality of Kubernetes, Cloud Native, Serverless, and Containers collapses, the original finding is a property of the conference selection. Alternatively, analyze talk abstracts or transcripts rather than titles for the same corpus and check whether early DevOps phases (Plan, Code, Release) show more than 10 percent of technologies when full content is considered.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that practitioner discourse on software architecture over the past five years is organized around a small set of core technologies. Among 450 technologies extracted from conference talk titles, Kubernetes, Cloud Native, Serverless, and Containers lead in both raw frequency and structural centrality: they connect to over 80 percent of the other technologies in the co-occurrence network and rank highest on weighted degree, closeness, and betweenness. These core technologies are mostly discussed in connection with the Build, Deploy, Operate, and Monitor phases of the DevOps pipeline, while Plan, Code, and Release receive little technological attention. Practitioners frame most talks as introductions and overviews, with deployment, communication, AI, and observability as the dominant purposes and contexts. The paper also identifies five technology communities—deployment automation, service communication, cloud AI, observability, and cross-cloud edge collaboration—that reflect the main subfields of current practice.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the premise that talk titles from these eight conferences give a representative picture of software architecture practice; if the conference lineup is skewed toward Kubernetes-centric and cloud-devops topics, the dominance findings would be an artifact of the sampling frame rather than of practice itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A small set of cloud-native infrastructure tools functions as the backbone of practitioner architecture discourse; new technologies gain visibility mainly by connecting to this core rather than by forming independent hubs.
  • Tools supporting Plan, Code, and Release are scarce in practitioner conferences, suggesting either a tooling gap or a blind spot in how early-lifecycle work is discussed.
  • Most technologies are classified as usable in both cloud and on-premise environments, indicating that hybrid deployment is the assumed default in current practice.
  • The rise of Generative AI and WebAssembly in later years, visible mainly in betweenness centrality, implies these are emerging bridge technologies rather than yet-established architectural centers.
  • Because the core technologies span many DevOps phases and purposes, practitioner talks treat them as generic infrastructure rather than niche tools.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the dominance of KubeCon in the corpus (about 43 percent of talks) reflects conference scheduling rather than practice, the same pipeline applied to a non-Kubernetes-centric conference set might shrink the centrality gap; this is a testable consequence of the sampling choice.
  • The finding that most talks are 'Introduction & Overview' suggests that conference discourse measures technology awareness diffusion more than deep adoption; the paper's own data cannot distinguish hype from production use.
  • The centrality analysis, applied to talk titles only, treats a technology mentioned in a title as the talk's subject; analyzing abstracts or transcripts could reveal whether early-phase technologies like planning tools are discussed under non-architectural vocabulary.
  • The five communities map naturally onto a maturity narrative: automation and observability are mature topics, while cloud-AI and cloud-edge are still forming, so the same method applied to 2025–2029 talks should show community boundary changes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports an empirical, large-scale review of software architecture trends as reflected in practitioner conference talks. The authors collected 5,677 talk titles from eight industry conferences over 2020–2024, used an LLM pipeline (with three validator LLMs and human validation) to extract technologies, purposes, and contexts, and then applied frequency analysis, co-occurrence network analysis, centrality metrics, and Louvain community detection. The central claims are that Kubernetes, Cloud Native, Serverless, and Containers dominate practitioner discourse by both frequency and network centrality; that practitioner attention is concentrated in the Build, Deploy, Operate, and Monitor DevOps phases; and that five technology communities can be identified, covering deployment automation, service communication, cloud AI, observability, and cloud-edge collaboration. The paper also reports a relative lack of practitioner focus on early lifecycle phases such as Plan, Code, and Release.

Significance. If the dominance claim is robust, the study would be a useful complement to existing practitioner-oriented trend reports such as the DORA reports and the Thoughtworks Technology Radar, and it would provide an evidence base for aligning academic research agendas with industry practice. The main strengths are the size of the corpus (5,677 talks), the explicit validation protocol involving multiple LLMs and human experts, and the public replication package. However, the central inference depends on the representativeness of the conference sample and on title-level extraction; these are not merely presentation concerns, because they directly determine whether the top-four finding is a property of software architecture practice or of the KubeCon-dominated corpus. For this reason the paper's current form does not yet establish the headline claim as stated, although the claim is plausibly correct and testable with additional robustness analyses.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Table 3, Section 3.2.1] The sampling-frame concern raised by the reader's report is real and land on the central claim. KubeCon editions contribute 2,427 of the 5,677 included talks (42.8% in Table 3), and the venue name itself contains the two most frequent extracted technologies, 'Kubernetes' and 'Cloud Native'. Because the co-occurrence network and all three centrality measures in Section 3.2 are computed from talk titles, the dense KubeCon sub-corpus can dominate both frequency counts and structural metrics. As reported in Section 3.2.2, the four core technologies connect to 89 of the other 108 nodes, which is exactly the pattern one would expect from a corpus in which one conference contributes nearly half of the talks and is named after two of the four 'core' terms. Section 6.4 acknowledges external-validity limits in general terms but does not quantify the effect. The authors should re-run the frequency and centrality analysis excluding all KubeCon editions, and also with conference-level equal weighting or stratified re-sampling, and report whether Kubernetes, Cloud Native, Serverless, and Containers still occupy the top ranks. Without such a robustness check, the dominance finding is not separable from the dominance of KubeCon in the sample.
  2. [Section 2.3, Section 6.1] The study extracts technologies, purposes, and contexts exclusively from talk titles. This is a substantial construct-validity risk, and the manuscript's own discussion in Section 6.1 acknowledges that titles 'may not fully capture the depth or nuance of the talk content.' The risk is not symmetric across the DevOps phases: talks about deployment and monitoring tools are likely to name the tool in the title, while talks about planning, architecture design, or coding practices may use abstract terms that do not map to the extracted technology list. Inclusion criterion E3 also requires titles to reference software architecture-related terms, which can exclude relevant practitioner talks and further skew the phase distribution. The authors should present a sensitivity analysis using a sample of talk abstracts or full descriptions, or at least quantify how many of the 5,677 titles mention a technology explicitly versus how many required LLM inference. At present the 'DevOps phase gap' finding may be an artifact of title-level extraction rather than a property of practitioner discourse.
  3. [Section 2.3.2, Section 2.4, Section 3.2.3] Several analysis choices are reasonable but are not tested for robustness, and they directly shape the headline results. First, the extracted term list mixes concrete tools (Kubernetes, Prometheus) with broad paradigms and categories (Cloud Native, Cloud, Serverless, AI), which inflates the apparent dominance of cloud-native concepts and makes the DevOps classification partly tautological: a term labeled 'Cloud Native' is very likely to be classified into cloud-centric DevOps phases. Second, the frequency threshold of at least 2 appearances and the focus on the fourth quartile are arbitrary; the paper does not report how the top-ten list changes if thresholds are varied. Third, the Louvain community detection in Section 3.2.3 is performed on a graph from which the four core technologies and 13 exclusively linked nodes are removed before clustering. The removal is justified by reference to Wen et al. (2011), but the number 13 and the definition of 'exclusively linked' are not described precisely, and no alternative community-detection runs (e.g., without removal, or with different resolution parameter gamma) are reported. The five-community structure is presented as a main result; it should be accompanied by sensitivity analyses showing that it is not an artifact of these choices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 9] The Code phase row reports # = 94 but a percentage of 3.11%, which is not consistent with 94 out of 450 technologies (20.9%). The Plan, Code, and Release percentages appear to be percentages of technology-phase assignments rather than percentages of technologies; the table should state the denominator clearly, and the text claiming that Plan, Code, and Release are 'each less than 10%' should be reconciled with the reported counts.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'we grouped the words into quartiles based on their frequency and present only the fourth quartile, i.e., the top 25 most frequently occurring words' is internally inconsistent: the fourth quartile contains 120 technologies according to the preceding paragraph. Please correct the wording to match the actual number.
  3. [Section 4.1] The text says 'such three technologies connect to over 80% of all other technologies' immediately after listing four core technologies (Kubernetes, Cloud Native, Serverless, and Containers). This inconsistency appears multiple times and should be fixed throughout the discussion.
  4. [Section 2.3.1] The sentence about prompt engineering says the authors employed LLMs for 'classifying refactoring motivations,' but the study is about technology adoption purposes and contexts, not refactoring motivations. This appears to be a copy-paste error from another paper and should be corrected.
  5. [Section 4.3 and Section 7] The claim that 'only research can provide a more holistic lens on architectural design, quality, and evolution' is a normative conclusion that goes beyond the descriptive data. The manuscript should either soften this statement or support it with evidence from the related-work comparison rather than presenting it as an empirical result.
  6. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors that should be corrected in revision, including 'adotpion', 'Futhermore', 'practioner', 'Holististic', 'Garter' for Gartner in Table 3, and inconsistent capitalization of 'Container' versus 'Containers' when referring to the same concept.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the frequency and centrality results are computed directly from the conference-title corpus, and the acknowledged KubeCon sampling imbalance is an external-validity threat rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper is a descriptive empirical study, not a derivation of results from assumptions that already contain them. RQ1.1 is answered by direct frequency counts of technology terms extracted from talk titles (Table 8); RQ1.2 is answered by Gephi centrality metrics computed on title co-occurrences (Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2). No parameter is fitted to a subset and then renamed as a prediction, and no target claim is used as an input to its own derivation. The large KubeCon contribution to the corpus (Table 3: 2,427 of 5,677 included talks) is a real sampling-frame threat to generalization, and Section 6.4 acknowledges the possible bias toward Kubernetes and AWS; however, that is a validity limitation, not circularity, because the dominance finding is calculated from the included corpus rather than assumed by it. The self-citations, notably Esposito et al. (2025a), appear only in interpretive passages (Section 4.3 and the Conclusion) supporting the editorial claim that research provides a holistic lens; they are not load-bearing evidence for the empirical frequency or centrality results. The LLM extraction with human validation is an upstream data-processing step, and its accuracy is checked against manually annotated samples, so it does not smuggle the study's conclusions into its inputs. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation or definitional reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard network analysis, a title-as-proxy assumption, a representativeness assumption about the conference sample, the LLM validation sample, and several ad hoc thresholds and exclusions. The frequency threshold, quartile cut, and community-detection removals are choices that shape the headline results.

free parameters (3)
  • Minimum technology frequency threshold = 2
    Technologies and contexts with frequency less than 2 were excluded to reduce noise (Section 2.3.2); this affects which 450 technologies and 232 contexts enter the analysis.
  • Quartile boundary for 'most frequent' technologies = 75th percentile
    The top-25 percent cut used throughout Sections 3.1 and 3.3 determines which technologies and contexts are called dominant.
  • Louvain resolution parameter gamma = not reported
    Equation 4 includes a resolution parameter; the paper reports modularity values but does not state the gamma used for community detection.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Centrality and modularity definitions (Equations 1-5)
    Standard network analysis definitions for weighted degree, closeness, betweenness, and modularity; not introduced by the paper.
  • domain assumption Talk titles are a valid proxy for the content, purpose, and context of practitioner talks
    All extraction is from titles only, as stated in Section 2.3 and acknowledged in the construct validity discussion in Section 6.1.
  • domain assumption The eight selected conferences represent practitioner software architecture discourse
    KubeCon alone is 2,427 of 5,677 talks (Table 3), and all sources are cloud and DevOps oriented; the authors acknowledge external validity limits in Section 6.4.
  • domain assumption LLM extraction accuracy validated on a sample generalizes to all 5,677 talks
    Human validation covers a statistically significant sample (about 400 titles), not the full corpus, as described in Sections 2.3.2 and Tables 5-7.
  • ad hoc to paper Frequency threshold of at least 2 appearances is appropriate
    Section 2.3.2 excludes technologies and contexts with frequency lower than 2 to eliminate noise; this choice shapes all subsequent frequency quartiles and network analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Removal of the four core technologies and 13 exclusively linked nodes before community detection
    The authors follow Wen et al. (2011) to avoid skewing modularity, but this exclusion directly shapes the five detected communities; the excluded nodes would likely form their own community.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emerging Trends in Software Architecture from the Practitioners Perspective: A Five Year Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVYFAXZT

@misc{pith2026250714554,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emerging Trends in Software Architecture from the Practitioners Perspective: A Five Year Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVYFAXZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14554}
}
read the original abstract

Software architecture plays a central role in the design, development, and maintenance of software systems. With the rise of cloud computing, microservices, and containers, architectural practices have diversified. Understanding these shifts is vital. This study analyzes software architecture trends across eight leading industry conferences over five years. We investigate the evolution of software architecture by analyzing talks from top practitioner conferences, focusing on the motivations and contexts driving technology adoption. We analyzed 5,677 talks from eight major industry conferences, using large language models and expert validation to extract technologies, their purposes, and usage contexts. We also explored how technologies interrelate and fit within DevOps and deployment pipelines. Among 450 technologies, Kubernetes, Cloud Native, Serverless, and Containers dominate by frequency and centrality. Practitioners present technology mainly related to deployment, communication, AI, and observability. We identify five technology communities covering automation, coordination, cloud AI, monitoring, and cloud-edge. Most technologies span multiple DevOps stages and support hybrid deployment. Our study reveals that a few core technologies, like Kubernetes and Serverless, dominate the contemporary software architecture practice. These are mainly applied in later DevOps stages, with limited focus on early phases like planning and coding. We also show how practitioners frame technologies by purpose and context, reflecting evolving industry priorities. Finally, we observe how only research can provide a more holistic lens on architectural design, quality, and evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14554 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the Research Process RQ1 What software architecture trends have emerged from top practitioner conferences over the past five years? • RQ1.1 . Which technologies have been most prominently featured in software architecture field talks at top practitioner conferences over the past five years? • RQ1.2 . What relationships and patterns of co￾occurrence exist among the extracted technolo￾gies in the software … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. All in all, these results illustrate that software [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. WordCloud for the Technologies (Frequency ≥ 2 - Orange: AWS; Green: GCP; Blue: Azure, Gray: Other) Su et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 24 of 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top 10 technologies in the fourth quartile (top 25%) by Year (RQ1.1 ) kubernetes serverless cloud-native llm webassembly cloud-edge service mesh istio multi-cloud orchestration container kuberedge ebpf harbor edge computing kubevirt gateway ci/cd crossplane tekton api …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Technology co-occurrence network (RQ1.2 ) Su et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 25 of 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of Centrality Measurement Rankings (RQ1.2). Su et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 26 of 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Connections Between Four Core technologies in the Network (RQ1.2 ) harbor ci/cd tekton flux gitops saas kubeflow argo open policy agent crossplane knative helm kyverno cloudevents litmus chaos event-driven architecture aws eks iac aws fargate amazon ecs platform en…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: C1 - Architecture Deployment and Infrastructure Automation Community (RQ1.2 ) service mesh istio api microservice cilium linkerd ingress gateway grpc vitess contour paas monolith gke cloud run anthos amazon aurora aws appsync amazon redshift amazon rds postgres cloud c…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: C5 - Cross-Cloud Architecture and Cloud-Edge Collaboration Community (RQ1.2 ) Su et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 29 of 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Purpose category distribution by year (RQ2 ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: WordCloud for the Context (Frequency ≥ 2) (RQ2 ) Su et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 30 of 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Sankey for the top-10 “Technologies - Purpose - Context” (RQ2 ) Su et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 31 of 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    title Trends in software architecture designs: Evolution and current state

    author Agwenyi , author Mbugua , year 2025 . title Trends in software architecture designs: Evolution and current state . journal International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology volume 10 , pages 1725--1729

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    , author Esposito, M

    author Akbar, M.A. , author Esposito, M. , author Hyrynsalmi, S. , author Kumar, K.D. , author Lcnarduzzi, V. , author Li, X. , author Mehraj, A. , author Mikkonen, T. , author Moreschini, S. , author Makitalo, N. , author Oivo, M. , author Paavonen, A.S. , author Parveen, R. , author Smolander, K. , author Su, R. , author Systa, K. , author Taibi, D. , a...

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    , author Binz, T

    author Andrikopoulos, V. , author Binz, T. , author Leymann, F. , author Strauch, S. , year 2013 . title How to adapt applications for the cloud environment: Challenges and solutions in migrating applications to the cloud . journal Computing volume 95 , pages 493--535

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    , author Barthelemy, M

    author Barrat, A. , author Barthelemy, M. , author Pastor-Satorras, R. , author Vespignani, A. , year 2004 . title The architecture of complex weighted networks . journal Proceedings of the national academy of sciences volume 101 , pages 3747--3752

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    , author Sharp, H

    author Barroca, L. , author Sharp, H. , author Salah, D. , author Taylor, K. , author Gregory, P. , year 2018 . title Bridging the gap between research and agile practice: an evolutionary model . journal International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management volume 9 , pages 323--334

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    , author Clements, P

    author Bass, L. , author Clements, P. , author Kazman, R. , year 2021 . title Software architecture in practice, 4th Edition . publisher Addison-Wesley Professional

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    , author Weber, I

    author Bass, L. , author Weber, I. , author Zhu, L. , year 2015 . title DevOps: A software architect's perspective . publisher Addison-Wesley Professional

    work page 2015

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    , author Heymann, S

    author Bastian, M. , author Heymann, S. , author Jacomy, M. , year 2009 . title Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks , in: booktitle Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , pp. pages 361--362

    2009

  2. [10]

    , author Rawis, J.A

    author Batmetan, J.R. , author Rawis, J.A. , author Lengkong, J.S.J. , author Rotty, V.N.J. , year 2023 . title Future trends for direction in enterprise architecture: systematic literature review . journal International Journal of Information Technology and Education volume 2...

    2023

  3. [11]

    , author Guillaume, J.L

    author Blondel, V.D. , author Guillaume, J.L. , author Lambiotte, R. , author Lefebvre, E. , year 2008 . title Fast unfolding of communities in large networks . journal Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment volume 2008 , pages P10008

    2008

  4. [12]

    , author Daneva, M

    author Bolscher, R. , author Daneva, M. , year 2019 . title Designing software architecture to support continuous delivery and devops: a systematic literature review , in: booktitle 14th International Conference on Software Technologies, ICSOFT 2019 , organization SCITEPRESS ....

    2019

  5. [13]

    , author Borgatti, S.P

    author Brandes, U. , author Borgatti, S.P. , author Freeman, L.C. , year 2016 . title Maintaining the duality of closeness and betweenness centrality . journal Social networks volume 44 , pages 153--159

    2016

  6. [14]

    , author Crnkovic, I

    author Breivold, H.P. , author Crnkovic, I. , author Larsson, M. , year 2012 . title A systematic review of software architecture evolution research . journal Information and Software Technology volume 54 , pages 16--40

    2012

  7. [15]

    , author Ferrara, E

    author De Meo, P. , author Ferrara, E. , author Fiumara, G. , author Provetti, A. , year 2011 . title Generalized louvain method for community detection in large networks , in: booktitle International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications , pp. pages 88--93

    2011

  8. [16]

    title Periodic table of devops tools

    author Digital.ai , year 2025 . title Periodic table of devops tools . howpublished Online Resource . note https://intellipaat.com/blog/devops-periodic-table/

    2025

  9. [17]

    , author Li, X

    author Esposito, M. , author Li, X. , author Moreschini, S. , author Ahmad, N. , author Cerny, T. , author Vaidhyanathan, K. , author Lenarduzzi, V. , author Taibi, D. , year 2025 a. title Generative AI for Software Architecture . Applications , Trends , Challenges , and Futur...

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    , author Palagiano, F

    author Esposito, M. , author Palagiano, F. , author Lenarduzzi, V. , author Taibi, D. , year 2024 a. title Beyond Words : On Large Language Models Actionability in Mission - Critical Risk Analysis , in: booktitle International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Me...

    2024

  11. [19]

    , author Palagiano, F

    author Esposito, M. , author Palagiano, F. , author Lenarduzzi, V. , author Taibi, D. , year 2024 b. title On Large Language Models in Mission - Critical IT Governance : Are We Ready Yet ? journal ICSE-SEIP '25

    2024

  12. [20]

    , author Robredo, M

    author Esposito, M. , author Robredo, M. , author Fontana, F.A. , author Lenarduzzi, V. , year 2024 c. title On the correlation between Architectural Smells and Static Analysis Warnings . journal CoRR volume abs/2406.17354 . :10.48550/ARXIV.2406.17354. note arXiv: 2406.17354

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    , author Robredo, M

    author Esposito, M. , author Robredo, M. , author Sridharan, M. , author Travassos, G.H. , author Peñaloza, R. , author Lenarduzzi, V. , year 2025 b. title A Call for Critically Rethinking and Reforming Data Analysis in Empirical Software Engineering . journal arXiv preprint a...

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    , author Jansen, S

    author Farshidi, S. , author Jansen, S. , author van der Werf, J.M. , year 2020 . title Capturing software architecture knowledge for pattern-driven design . journal Journal of Systems and Software volume 169 , pages 110714

    2020

  15. [23]

    , author Barthelemy, M

    author Fortunato, S. , author Barthelemy, M. , year 2007 . title Resolution limit in community detection . journal Proceedings of the national academy of sciences volume 104 , pages 36--41

    2007

  16. [24]

    , et al., year 2002

    author Freeman, L.C. , et al., year 2002 . title Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification . journal Social network: critical concepts in sociology. Londres: Routledge volume 1 , pages 238--263

    2002

  17. [25]

    , author Petersen, K

    author Garousi, V. , author Petersen, K. , author Ozkan, B. , year 2016 . title Challenges and best practices in industry-academia collaborations in software engineering: A systematic literature review . journal Information and Software Technology volume 79 , pages 106--127

    2016

  18. [26]

    , year 2024

    author Gartner, Inc. , year 2024 . title Gartner hype cycle for emerging technologies 2024 . howpublished Online Report . note https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/what-s-new-in-the-2024-gartner-hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies

    2024

  19. [27]

    , year 2025

    author Gartner, Inc. , year 2025 . title Gartner hype cycle for emerging technologies 2025 . howpublished Online Report . note https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies

    2025

  20. [28]

    title 2024 accelerate state of devops report

    author Google Cloud DORA Team , year 2024 . title 2024 accelerate state of devops report . howpublished Online Report . note https://dora.dev/research/2024/dora-report/

    2024

  21. [29]

    title Top programming languages 2024

    author IEEE Spectrum , year 2024 . title Top programming languages 2024 . howpublished Online Report . note https://spectrum.ieee.org/top-programming-languages-2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    title Infoq trends report

    author InfoQ , year 2025 . title Infoq trends report . howpublished Online Report . note https://www.infoq.com/infoq-trends-report/

    2025

  23. [31]

    , author Ahmad, A

    author Jamshidi, P. , author Ahmad, A. , author Pahl, C. , year 2013 . title Cloud migration research: a systematic review . journal IEEE transactions on cloud computing volume 1 , pages 142--157

    2013

  24. [32]

    , author Mazzara, M

    author Kassab, M. , author Mazzara, M. , author Lee, J. , author Succi, G. , year 2018 . title Software architectural patterns in practice: an empirical study . journal Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering volume 14 , pages 263--271

    2018

  25. [33]

    , author Brereton, P

    author Kitchenham, B. , author Brereton, P. , year 2013 . title A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering . journal Information and software technology volume 55 , pages 2049--2075

    2013

  26. [34]

    , author Zhang, B

    author Li, X. , author Zhang, B. , year 2020 . title A preliminary network analysis on steam game tags: Another way of understanding game genres , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Academic Mindtrek , pp. pages 65--73

    2020

  27. [35]

    , author Demeyer, S

    author Mens, T. , author Demeyer, S. , author Barais, O. , author Le Meur, A.F. , author Duchien, L. , author Lawall, J. , year 2008 . title Software architecture evolution . journal Software Evolution , pages 233--262

    2008

  28. [36]

    , year 2004

    author Newman, M.E. , year 2004 . title Analysis of weighted networks . journal Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics volume 70 , pages 056131

    2004

  29. [37]

    , year 2006

    author Newman, M.E. , year 2006 . title Modularity and community structure in networks . journal Proceedings of the national academy of sciences volume 103 , pages 8577--8582

    2006

  30. [38]

    , year 2024

    author Nivedhaa, N. , year 2024 . title Software architecture evolution: Patterns, trends, and best practices . journal International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering (IJCSE) volume 1 , pages 1--14

    2024

  31. [39]

    , year 2025

    author O'Grady, S. , year 2025 . title The redmonk programming language rankings: January 2025 . howpublished Online Report . note https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2025/06/18/language-rankings-1-25/

    2025

  32. [40]

    , author Agneessens, F

    author Opsahl, T. , author Agneessens, F. , author Skvoretz, J. , year 2010 . title Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths . journal Social networks volume 32 , pages 245--251

    2010

  33. [41]

    title Over 40\ howpublished News Article

    author Reuters , year 2025 . title Over 40\ howpublished News Article . note https://www.reuters.com/business/over-40-agentic-ai-projects-will-be-scrapped-by-2027-gartner-says-2025-06-25

    2025

  34. [42]

    , year 1966

    author Sabidussi, G. , year 1966 . title The centrality index of a graph . journal Psychometrika volume 31 , pages 581--603

    1966

  35. [43]

    , author Arifuzzaman, S

    author Sattar, N.S. , author Arifuzzaman, S. , year 2022 . title Scalable distributed louvain algorithm for community detection in large graphs . journal Journal of Supercomputing volume 78 , pages 10275--10309

    2022

  36. [44]

    , author Falter, S

    author Sen, A. , author Falter, S. , author Mayer, N. , year 2022 . title Using devops paradigm to deploy web applications. journal Issues in Information Systems volume 23

    2022

  37. [45]

    , author Li, X

    author Su, R. , author Li, X. , author Taibi, D. , year 2024 . title From microservice to monolith: A multivocal literature review . journal Electronics volume 13 , pages 1452

    2024

  38. [46]

    , author Lenarduzzi, V

    author Taibi, D. , author Lenarduzzi, V. , author Pahl, C. , year 2017 . title Processes, motivations, and issues for migrating to microservices architectures: An empirical investigation . journal IEEE Cloud Computing volume 4 , pages 22--32

    2017

  39. [47]

    title Technology radar volume 31

    author Thoughtworks , year 2024 . title Technology radar volume 31 . howpublished Online Report . note https://www.thoughtworks.com/radar

    2024

  40. [48]

    title Tiobe index for june 2025

    author TIOBE Software , year 2025 . title Tiobe index for june 2025 . howpublished Online Report . note https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

    2025

  41. [49]

    , author Zhang, Y

    author Wan, Z. , author Zhang, Y. , author Xia, X. , author Jiang, Y. , author Lo, D. , year 2023 . title Software architecture in practice: Challenges and opportunities , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on...

    2023

  42. [50]

    , author Wang, X

    author Wei, J. , author Wang, X. , author Schuurmans, D. , author Bosma, M. , author Xia, F. , author Chi, E. , author Le, Q.V. , author Zhou, D. , et al., year 2022 . title Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models . journal Advances in neural info...

    2022

  43. [51]

    , author Leicht, E

    author Wen, H. , author Leicht, E. , author D’Souza, R.M. , year 2011 . title Improving community detection in networks by targeted node removal . journal Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics volume 83 , pages 016114

    2011

  44. [52]

    , author Runeson, P

    author Wohlin, C. , author Runeson, P. , author Höst, M. , author Ohlsson, M.C. , author Regnell, B. , author Wesslén, A. , year 2024 . title Experimentation in Software Engineering , Second Edition . publisher Springer . :10.1007/978-3-662-69306-3

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.