The author appears to misunderstand statistical significance when he makes claims such as "the existence of a static type system has neither a positive nor a ne

The author appears to misunderstand statistical significance when he makes claims such as "the existence of a static type system has neither a positive nor a negative impact on ... development time." The mean development time for dynamically typed languages is about 30% shorter in his first experiment, and it is about 20% shorter in the second experiment. Statistical significance test determines how likely this difference would be if the difference development time in a large population was 0... It doesn't mean that the true effect actually is 0... it's just addressing whether we can completely rule that out. A more accurate summary of his results would be "Dynamic type systems allowed 20% to 30% faster development in my experiments, but I had too few participants to reject equality."