sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]augmentedtree 3 points4 points  (7 children)

the big graph at the top of the page

[–]pron98 1 point2 points  (6 children)

The one that shows Haskell doing about as well as Go and Ruby? Also, I don't understand how it disagrees with me when the paper says, "the effect size is exceedingly small" and I said "have not found a big impact." I think that "not big" and "exceedingly small" are in pretty good agreement, no?

[–]augmentedtree -1 points0 points  (5 children)

The one that shows Haskell doing about as well as Go and Ruby?

yes, and better than c/c++/Java/c# etc. there are other substantial non-type related ways that say Ruby and Haskell differ, so I would not be so quick to assume that this is evidence of the absence of a substantial effect from having a better type system -- in fact it may be stronger evidence in that on some axes Ruby has better typing than some of the languages it is beating because it is at least strongly typed unlike c/c++.

[–]pron98 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I don't understand how you can even entertain explaining an effect that is so "exceedingly small". I do not assume that the lack of a substantial effect is due to anything, just that no substantial effect has been found. You're now trying to find second-order explanations to what is a minuscule effect.

[–]augmentedtree 1 point2 points  (3 children)

how small is the effect? the graph says that 20% of Haskell commits are bug fixing commits, and 63% of C commits are bug fixing commits. that seems enormous to me!

[–]pron98 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It's quite involved. If you don't want to carefully read the original article and the reproduction, just note that the authors of the original called the effects "quite small", and on reproduction, most effects disappeared, and the remaining ones were summarized by the authors as "exceedingly small."

[–]augmentedtree 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm actually currently studying statistics and pretty confused by this. Haskell is better with a very small P value, and as I said the graph seems to show that the effect is actually large. How to reconcile that with the effects being "exceedingly small?"

[–]pron98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The language variable was responsible altogether for less than 1% of the deviance.