4 ms·
This article is dated October 2017 and claims to be the first large-scale evidentiary study. But I have definitely seen either this exact study or another one n
by hellofunk 9y ago
This article is dated October 2017 and claims to be the first large-scale evidentiary study. But I have definitely seen either this exact study or another one nearly identical, also using GitHub and also having similar results for the languages, and that was at least 1 year ago. So perhaps this article is a re-print of a prior study?
- lomnakkus 9y agoHere you go: http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~filkov/papers/lang_github.pdf http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~filkov/papers/lang_github.pdf Seems to be from 2014 and has the exact same list of authors, I think. (Hosted in ~filkov which I'm assuming is the www_public of Vladimir Filkov.) No idea what changed since then.
- hellofunk 9y agoNot just the same list of authors; the article and this PDF have nearly the same verbatim wording.
- dang 9y agoI was wondering that too, because of https://hn.algolia.com/?query=A%20Large-Scale%20Study%20of%20Programming%20Languages%20and%20Code%20Quality%20in%20GitHub&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=A%20Large-Scale%20Study%20of%2.... I think we'll put 2014 above. Edit: two in one night! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15382275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15382275
- mrmeh 9y agoThat's how CACM research highlights work. A published paper is invited to be featured as a highlight. The paper is edited somewhat, generally it's made smaller with some details removed. The edited paper will then appear some time later along with a discussion of the paper written by someone not associated with the paper. If the paper is controversial, as this one is, a long time may pass between the original date of publication and the publication of the CACM research highlight.