4 ms·

> I'm talking about software development And the value different languages may add is entirely about software development. > I don't think it matters if it's

> I'm talking about software development And the value different languages may add is entirely about software development. > I don't think it matters if it's strong or weak evidence, as it's not even about software development. Programming languages are not about software development? Oh do go on. > As I mentioned in another comment, C is not a good example. A study of C vs C++ strongly indicates your claim about languages is false and suddenly C is not a good example? I'm trying to believe I'm just misunderstanding you but it's getting more difficult. > The original prediction of that theory was that no 10x improvement would be made by a single language improvement This isn't what you said. Let me remind you "If you're referring to the particular languages, then the reality is that no big effect has been found for the choice of programming language on software quality" The goalposts aren't being moved, you've just bought them plane tickets to barbados. > If you want a more precise statement: no theory or empirical evidence supports the claim that a reasonable choice among production languages developed in the past three decades or so has a big impact on any measurable bottom-line metric Another claim. Show me the study that says that. > But those papers show that, unlike language, process does have a big impact on quality. It can if done properly; it does not do so automatically. You can have code reviews that are of little use because you have no spec to review the code against. I have been in that very position. I don't dispute the value of process but it's a necessary but not sufficient condition to bring about quality. I also agree code reviews are good, if done properly. ME >> With enough process you can close any hole in a language, but it gets exponentially expensive. YOU > You are now making an unsubstantiated claim that contradicts a substantiated claim. If I use C I have to worry about garbage leaks, double-freeing pointers, out-of-bounds accesses etc that can be detected with code reviews. If I use python, I never have any of these problems so a code review need not check for these. That's a lot cheaper. (Edit: weird stuff happening to my post, may appear twice)

pron 7y ago
> This isn't what you said. I can't repeat all the caveats every time I say something. I assume readers believe my comments are at least reasonable, even if they disagree with them. For convenience, I restated the current state of knowledge more precisely in my previous comment. If you're interested in what I have to say, assume I'm not an idiot, and perhaps we could have an interesting discussion, and if you think I'm an idiot, then there's no point in arguing at all. > Show me the study that says that. Show me the study that says otherwise. I don't need to provide evidence for the lack of an effect (although I did). The lack of an effect is, at the very least, the default hypothesis in this case (as in many others) as there is no theory suggesting we should believe otherwise (while a theory that explains why languages increasingly have smaller effects has made correct predictions). > It can if done properly That's your hypothesis. We've been trying to find evidence of that, or others like it, for a long time -- both in academia and in industry -- without success. We simply do not observe that the choice of language today (among reasonable ones etc.) has a big effect, either in studies or in industry practice. But if you've found a language that can drastically reduce software development costs and/or increase quality at scale, that discovery can be easily translated to billions of dollars. Go ahead and make them.

pron 7y ago

> This isn't what you said. I can't repeat all the caveats every time I say something. I assume readers believe my comments are at least reasonable, even if they disagree with them. For convenience, I restated the current state of knowledge more precisely in my previous comment. If you're interested in what I have to say, assume I'm not an idiot, and perhaps we could have an interesting discussion, and if you think I'm an idiot, then there's no point in arguing at all. > Show me the study that says that. Show me the study that says otherwise. I don't need to provide evidence for the lack of an effect (although I did). The lack of an effect is, at the very least, the default hypothesis in this case (as in many others) as there is no theory suggesting we should believe otherwise (while a theory that explains why languages increasingly have smaller effects has made correct predictions). > It can if done properly That's your hypothesis. We've been trying to find evidence of that, or others like it, for a long time -- both in academia and in industry -- without success. We simply do not observe that the choice of language today (among reasonable ones etc.) has a big effect, either in studies or in industry practice. But if you've found a language that can drastically reduce software development costs and/or increase quality at scale, that discovery can be easily translated to billions of dollars. Go ahead and make them.