the psychological study of programming

b.a. sheil

in general, it just talks about how the empirical methodology is quite bad to figure out real results.

schneideman shows that it is hard

from Xerox PARC

the point is to focus on “performance” -> utility/functionality

As practiced by computer science, the study of programming is an unholy mixture of mathematics, literary criticism and folklore.

Shneiderman’s book: Software Psychology

research on programming is on:

it has a ref on how GOTO has been measured to be harmful ->

there is also a large practice effect that is observed (the more you do, the better you become)

The syntactic constructs [of a PL] are appropriate to that approach, but they are not themselves that approach. Therefore there is no reason to believe that their presence or absence will, by itself, have any significant impact. Either the programmer understands the structured approach to programming, in which case her code will reflect it {whether or not structured control constructs are available), or the programmer does not, in which case the presence of syntactic constructs is irrelevant.

  1. it’s hard to find correlation between constructs and languages
  2. the errors go away with practice
  3. pogrammers have organized knowledge bases -> statically typed languages are marginally less error-prone (makes sense)