Re: dynamic vs. static typing

[Howard Stearns <address@hidden>]

There are the studies by Prechelt and by Gat. 
(http://www.flownet.com/gat/papers/lisp-java.pdf) There was also a large 
study done at Bell Labs on the most common sources of errors in their 
programs, which I recall striking me as being equivalent to a study on 
(lack of) programmer productivity. (I can't find the reference right 
now, but I have it in my head that I found it through the Erlang community.)

Maybe the behavior of the marketplace demonstrates that the studies are 
not, in fact, convincing.

But in any case, with the indirect exception of the Bell Labs study, I 
don't recall seeing anything that breaks productivity down by particular 
programming area or feature, which I think is a shame. And nothing on 
static vs dynamic typing in particular.

Christopher Barber wrote:
>...
> There aren't any convincing empirical studies of any area of programming 
> productivity.