An empirical study of the influence of static type systems on the usability of undocumented software

71 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

TypeWriter: neural type prediction with search-based validation (2019, background): “Type annotations are usually ignored at runtime; nevertheless, they serve both as hints for developers using external APIs and as inputs to gradual type checkers that ensure that specific programming errors cannot occur.”
A large scale study of programming languages and code quality in github (2014, background): “Some recent works have conducted experiments in controlled settings with tasks of limited scope, with students, using languages with static or dynamic typing (based on experimental treatment setting) [14, 22, 19].”
Assessing the Type Annotation Burden (2018, background): “Indeed, many empirical studies confirm the benefits of type systems [13, 27, 36, 43, 46].”
To Type or Not to Type: Quantifying Detectable Bugs in JavaScript (2017, unknown): “We are not the first to empirically compare dynamic and static type systems [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 25, 26].”
An Empirical Investigation into Programming Language Syntax (2013, background): “Given that previous work has shown benefits of static typing [Hanenberg 2010a; Kleinschmager et al. 2012; Mayer et al. 2012], this result may imply that type systems only grant benefits once individuals garner experience.”