An experiment about static and dynamic type systems doubts about the positive impact of static type systems on development time

ACM SIGPLAN Notices

Volumn 45, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 22-35

  Hanenberg, Stefan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Dynamically typed languages; Empirical study; Programming languages; Type systems

Indexed keywords

CODE QUALITY; DEVELOPMENT TIME; DYNAMICALLY TYPED LANGUAGES; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE; NEGATIVE IMPACTS; PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; STATIC AND DYNAMIC; STATIC TYPE SYSTEMS; TYPE SYSTEMS; WORKING TIME;

JAVA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; TEACHING;

EXPERIMENTS;

EID: 79551673405     PISSN: 15232867     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1932682.1869462     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Bruce, K.: Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages: Types and Semantics, MIT PRESS, 2002
2. Cardelli, Luca: Type Systems, In: CRC Handbook of Computer Science and Engineering, 2nd Edition, CRC Press, 1997.
3. Carver, J.; Jaccheri, L.; Morasca, S., Schull, F. Using empirical studies during software courses, Empirical Methods and Studies in Software Engineering, Experiences from ESERNET, LNCS 2765, Springer, 2003, pp. 81-103.
4. Conover, W. J.: Practical nonparametric statistics, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
5. Daly, M.; Sazawal, V., Foster, J.: Work in Progress: an Empirical Study of Static Typing in Ruby, Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools (PLATEAU) at ONWARD 2009.
6. Eckel, B.: Strong Typing vs. Strong Testing, mindview, 2003, http://www.mindview.net/WebLog/log-0025, last access: August 2009
7. Gannon, J. D.: An Experimental Evaluation of Data Type Conventions, Comm. ACM 20(8), 1977, S. 584-595.
8. Gat, E.: Lisp as an alternative to Java. Intelligence 11(4):21-24, 2000.
9. Graver, J. O.; Johnson, R. E.: A Type System for Smalltalk, Seventeenth Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1990, pp. 136-150
10. Hanenberg, S.: Faith, Hope, and Love - A criticism of software science's carelessness with regard to the human factor, To appear in Proceedings of Onward 2010.
11. Hanenberg, S.: What is the Impact of Type Systems on Programming Time? - Preliminary Empirical Results, Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools (PLATEAU) at ONWARD 2009.
12. Hanenberg, S. Doubts about the Positive Impact of Static Type Systems on Programming Tasks in Single Developer Projects - An Empirical Study, Proceedings of ECOOP 2010, Springer, pp. 300-303.
13. Hanenberg, S.; Stuchlik, A.: What is the impact of type casts on development time? An empirical study with Java and Groovy, Submitted, 2010.
14. Hudak, P.; Jones, M. P.: Haskell vs. Ada vs. C++ vs. Awk vs... An Experiment in Software Prototyping Productivity, technical report, Dept. of Computer Science, Yale Univ., New Haven, Conn., July 1994.
15. Juristo, N.; Moreno, A.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation, Springer, 2001.
16. Kitchenham, B. et al.: Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Volume 28, Issue 8, 2002, pp. 721-734.
17. Kitchenham, B. et al.: Evaluating guidelines for empirical software engineering studies, International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2006, pp. 38-47.
18. Lamport, L.; Paulson, L. C.: Should your specification language be typed, vol. 21, ACM, New York, NY, USA. 1999.
19. Pierce, B.: Types and Programming Languages, MIT Press, 2002.
20. Pfleeger, S. L., Experimental Design and Analysis in Software Engineering Part 4: Choosing an Experimental Design, Software Engineering Notes, vol 20, no 3, ACM, 1995
21. Prechelt, L.: Kontrollierte Experimente in der Softwaretechnik: Potenzial und Methodik, Springer-Verlag, 2001.
22. Prechelt, Lutz: An empirical comparison of C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx, and Tcl for a search/string-processing program. Technical Report 2000-5, March 2000.
23. Prechelt, L., Tichy W.: A Controlled Experiment to Assess the Benefits of Procedure Argument Type Checking, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(4), 1998, S. 302-312.
24. Svahnberg, M.; Aurum, A.; Wohlin, C.: Using Students as Subject, Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement, Kaiserslautern, Germany, pp. 288-290.
25. Tichy, W.: Should Computer Scientists Experiment More?, IEEE Computer 31 (5): S. 32-40
26. Tratt, L., Wuyts, R.: Dynamically Typed Languages. IEEE Software 24(5), 2007, S. 28-30.
27. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction, Springer, 1999