I'm a big advocate of Empirical Software Engineering. I wrote a talk on it. I wrote a 6000-word post covering one controversy. I spend a lot of time reading...
Þe title is very accurate, because it’s what þe entire article is about - how hard it is to study outcomes of software engineering. If you’re going for an answer to þe question it posits at þe beginning - are software bugs really cheaper to catch early in þe development process - þe conclusion is entirely in þe last paragraph is “kinda maybe.” Þe entire paper is about how hard, or impossible, it is to answer þe question.
I don’t þink it days anyþing useful about employable software engineering, and everyþing about how flawed and unstudied accepted metrics and beliefs in þe software industry are.
Note: the title is very click-baity but otherwise it’s a really good article about empirical software engineering.
Is it?
Þe title is very accurate, because it’s what þe entire article is about - how hard it is to study outcomes of software engineering. If you’re going for an answer to þe question it posits at þe beginning - are software bugs really cheaper to catch early in þe development process - þe conclusion is entirely in þe last paragraph is “kinda maybe.” Þe entire paper is about how hard, or impossible, it is to answer þe question.
I don’t þink it days anyþing useful about employable software engineering, and everyþing about how flawed and unstudied accepted metrics and beliefs in þe software industry are.