Personally, I have read the abstract alone, and was pleased to see it nurtured my own preferences: static typing is better, strong typing is better. But then I

Personally, I have read the abstract alone, and was pleased to see it nurtured my own preferences: static typing is better, strong typing is better. But then I saw this disclaimer: > It is worth noting that these modest effects arising from language design are overwhelmingly dominated by the process factors such as project size, team size, and commit size. So I dismissed the paper as "not conclusive", at least for the time being. I wasn't surprised if their finding were mostly noise, or a confounding factor they missed. By the way, I recall some other paper saying that code size is the most significant factor ever to measure everything else. Which means that more concise and expressive languages, which yield smaller programs, will also reduce the time to completion, as well as the bug rate. But if their study corrects for project size, while ignoring the problems being solved, then it overlooks one of the most important effect of programming languages in a project: its size.