emperical

R. Stuart Geiger. Bottom Line Up Front I rate this 7.7. Does what it says on the tin. Summary 5500 randomly sampled respondents from 3800 github repos. 500 non-random, non-github responses. 50 questions. paper is really an ipynb https://github.com/staeiou/github-survey-analysis/blob/master/github-survey-descriptive-stats.ipynb They cite Python 3.6 as a 1995 paper by guido? Also a bizarre subset of all the ipynb greatest hits all as papers. That’s a first for me. Truly bizarre. Amos’s Thoughts It’s mostly a bunch of figures....

Andreas Zeller, Thomas Zimmermann, Christian Bird. Bottom Line Up Front I rate this 0.7. It’s an almost funny tweet dragged out for 4 pages. I’m not sure why I read this… hopefully discussion in class reveals something interesting. Summary Introduction Failures follow a Pareto distribution. Cost of consequence: If I know a module is failure-prone because it frequently changes, should I stop changing it? This paper proposes moving work earlier, to time of typing code....