4 ms·
>This paper presents an empirical study with 49 subjects that studies the impact of a static type system for the development of a parser over 27 hours working t
by verroq 12y ago
>This paper presents an empirical study with 49 subjects that studies the impact of a static type system for the development of a parser over 27 hours working time.
Because all the programs you've ever written were parsers.
full text: http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse590n/10au/hanenberg-oopsla2010.pdf http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse590n/10au/hanenb...
I'm not actually surprised at this result when they forced people to use their toy static typed language, in their toy IDE (which couldn't take advantage of the static typing i.e. intellisense style prompts, type error underlines etc).
- dllthomas 12y agoAnd you never need to refactor them. It's also not clear the sophistication of the type system, or the familiarity of the 49 participants with the type system, whether they were working together or independently, ... But most damning is the line immediately following: "In the experiments the existence of the static type system has neither a positive nor a negative impact on an application's development time (under the conditions of the experiment)." Unless the abstract is tremendously misleading, the paper flat out does not say what TFA claims.
- dllthomas 12y agoAt a closer look (I missed the pdf link, the first time) it seems the abstract is tremendously misleading. Under the conditions of the experiment dynamic typing was faster. Of course, the conditions of the experiment involved a small project in an unfamiliar language with an unfamiliar type system over the course of 27 hours with an unchanging set of requirements, so draw your own conclusions as to how well this generalizes.