Melissa Lin | Searcharxiv

arXiv2024

Prompts Are Programs Too! Understanding How Developers Build Software Containing Prompts

Generative pre-trained models power intelligent software features used by millions of users controlled by developer-written natural language prompts. Despite the impact of prompt-powered software, little is known about its development process and its relationship to programming. In this work, we argue that some prompts are programs and that the development of prompts is a distinct phenomenon in programming known as "prompt programming". We develop an understanding of prompt programming using Straussian grounded theory through interviews with 20 developers engaged in prompt development across a variety of contexts, models, domains, and prompt structures. We contribute 15 observations to form a preliminary understanding of current prompt programming practices. For example, rather than building mental models of code, prompt programmers develop mental models of the foundation model (FM)'s behavior on the prompt by interacting with the FM. While prior research shows that experts have well-formed mental models, we find that prompt programmers who have developed dozens of prompts still struggle to develop reliable mental models. Our observations show that prompt programming differs from traditional software development, motivating the creation of prompt programming tools and providing implications for software engineering stakeholders.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

How do Observable Users Decompose D3 Code? A Qualitative Study

Many toolkit developers seek to streamline the visualization programming process through structured support such as prescribed templates and example galleries. However, few projects examine how users organize their own visualization programs and how their coding choices may deviate from the intents of toolkit developers, impacting visualization prototyping and design. Further, is it possible to infer users' reasoning indirectly through their code, even when users copy code from other sources? We explore this question through a qualitative analysis of 715 D3 programs on Observable. We identify three levels of program organization based on how users decompose their code into smaller blocks: Program-, Chart-, and Component-Level code decomposition, with a strong preference for Component-Level reasoning. In a series of interviews, we corroborate that these levels reflect how Observable users reason about visualization programs. We compare common user-made components with those theorized in the Grammar of Graphics to assess overlap in user and toolkit developer reasoning. We find that, while the Grammar of Graphics covers basic visualizations well, it falls short in describing complex visualization types, especially those with animation, interaction, and parameterization components. Our findings highlight how user practices differ from formal grammars and reinforce ongoing efforts to rethink visualization toolkit support, including augmenting learning tools and AI assistants to better reflect real-world coding strategies.

cs.HC↗