3 ms·
That was designed as a repeatable experiment, which seems entirely reasonable when you want to conduct a study. Why are you characterising that as “a programmin
by JimDabell 3y ago
That was designed as a repeatable experiment, which seems entirely reasonable when you want to conduct a study. Why are you characterising that as “a programming contest”? That seems like an uncharitably distorted way of describing a study.
That study also does not exist in isolation:
https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-is-the-underlying-research/ https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-i...
- randomdata 3y ago> Why are you characterising that as “a programming contest”? Because it was? Do you have a better way to repeatedly test performance? And yes, the study's intent was to look at performance, not productivity. It's even right in the title. Not sure where you dreamed up the latter.