Static vs. dynamic type systems: An empirical study about the relationship between type casts and development time

DLS'11 - Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Dynamic Languages

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 97-106

  Stuchlik, Andreas ^a   Hanenberg, Stefan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Empirical research; Programming language research; Software engineering; Type systems

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPMENT TIME; DYNAMIC TYPE SYSTEMS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; MULTIPLE FACTORS; PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; PROGRAMMING TASKS; STATIC TYPE SYSTEMS; TYPE CAST; TYPE SYSTEMS;

DYNAMIC LIGHT SCATTERING; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

JAVA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE;

EID: 81455154926     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2047849.2047861     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Jürgen Bortz. Statistik: für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer, 6., vollst. überarb. u. aktualisierte aufl. edition, September 2005.
2. Ruven E. Brooks. Studying programmer behavior experimentally: the problems of proper methodology. Commun. ACM, 23:207-213, April 1980.
3. Kim B. Bruce. Foundations of object-oriented languages: types and semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.
4. Luca Cardelli. Type systems. In Allen B. Tucker, editor, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook, chapter 103, pages 2208-2236. CRC Press, 1997.
5. B. Curtis. Five paradigms in the psychology of programming. In M. Helander, editor, Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, pages 87-106. Elsevier (North-Holland), 1988.
6. Mark T. Daly, Vibha Sazawal, and Jeffrey S. Foster. Work in progress: an empirical study of static typing in ruby. Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools (PLATEAU), Orlando, Florida, October 2009, 2009.
7. Steve M. Easterbrook, J. Singer, M. Storey, and D. Damian. Selecting empirical methods for software engineering research. In F. Shull, J. Singer, and D. Sjøberg, editors, Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer, 2007.
8. J. D. Gannon. An experimental evaluation of data type conventions. Commun. ACM, 20(8):584-595, 1977.
9. Stefan Hanenberg. Doubts about the positive impact of static type systems on programming tasks in single developer projects - an empirical study. In ECOOP 2010 - Object-Oriented Programming, 24th European Conference, Maribor, Slovenia, June 21-25, 2010. Proceedings, LNCS 6183, pages 300-303. Springer, 2010.
10. Stefan Hanenberg. An experiment about static and dynamic type systems: Doubts about the positive impact of static type systems on development time. In Proceedings of the ACM international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications, OOPSLA'10, pages 22-35, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
11. Stefan Hanenberg. A chronological experience report from an initial experiment series on static type systems. In 2nd Workshop on Empirical Evaluation of Software Composition Techniques (ESCOT), Lancaster, UK, 2011.
12. Stefan Hanenberg, Sebastian Kleinschmager, and Manuel Josupeit-Walter. Does aspect-oriented programming increase the development speed for crosscutting code? an empirical study. In Proceedings of Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pages 156-167, 2009.
13. Martin Höst, Björn Regnell, and Claes Wohlin. Using students as subjects-a comparative study of students and professionals in leadtime impact assessment. Empirical Softw. Engg., 5(3):201-214, 2000. (Pubitemid 32085481)
14. Natalie Juristo and Ana M. Moreno. Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Springer, 2001.
15. Barbara Kitchenham, Hiyam Al-Khilidar, Muhammad Ali Babar, Mike Berry, Karl Cox, Jacky Keung, Felicia Kurniawati, Mark Staples, He Zhang, and Liming Zhu. Evaluating guidelines for empirical software engineering studies. In ISESE'06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering, pages 38-47, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. (Pubitemid 46634439)
16. Leslie Lamport and Lawrence C. Paulson. Should your specification language be typed. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 21(3):502-526, 1999.
17. Clemens Mayer, Stefan Hanenberg, Romain Robbes, and Eric Tanter. An experiment about the impact of static type systems for the use of undocumented apis - unpublished work in progress. 2011.
18. Benjamin C. Pierce. Types and programming languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.
19. Lutz Prechelt. Kontrollierte Experimente in der Softwaretechnik. Springer, Berlin, March 2001.
20. Lutz Prechelt and Walter F. Tichy. A controlled experiment to assess the benefits of procedure argument type checking. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 24(4):302-312, 1998. (Pubitemid 128740281)
21. Marvin Steinberg and Stefan Hanenberg. What is the impact of static type systems on debugging type errors and semantic errors? an empirical study of differences in debugging time using statically and dynamically typed languages - unpublished work in progress.
22. Laurence Tratt and Roel Wuyts. Guest editors'introduction: Dynamically typed languages. IEEE Software, 24(5):28-30, 2007. (Pubitemid 47455992)
23. Walter Bruce Walsh and Nancy E. Betz. Tests and Assessment. Prentice-Hall, Harlow, England, 2. edition, 1995.
24. Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C. Ohlsson, Bjöorn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, 2000.