"Interestingly, in this new study, the same result we saw with Perl we also observed with Java, a programming language so popular it is used in the Computer Science A – AP test in high school. Ultimately, using a technique we call Token Accuracy Mapping, which is basically a way to figure out which tokens may have caused the problems, it appeared that C-style syntax was plausibly the culprit."
It started with a knockoff of ALGOL60 called CPL. That's already pretty arbitrary and subject to thinking of 1960's. That basically pre-dates modern software development or involvement of laypeople. They couldn't compile it so they just eliminated features until it could compile. Result, very simplistic, was BCPL. That was slightly modified & extended into C also due to hardware constraints.
So, it literally has no justification as a programming language. Almost totally a result of terrible hardware that persisted for legacy/social reasons. A little research might have saved them time and money. ;)
"Ultimately, using a technique we call Token Accuracy Mapping, which is basically a way to figure out which tokens may have caused the problems, it appeared that C-style syntax was plausibly the culprit."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10775054
...about why you believed the items on my list didn't constitute scientific evidence. Hypothesis, analysis, verification by experimental practice, matched predictions, replication via re-application by diverse crowds, and delivering results. All sounds like scientific method to me. Many studies in academic and industry with these properties over the years.
If you reject all of that, I'd like to see what your version of the scientific method is as it's different than what most fields of study are using. I still contend that my numbered list represents scientific evidence in favor of whatever those methods were applied to. In that case, there's scientific evidence for everything I recommended with varying strength.
I didn't read it.
> The proof is in the literature I'm referencing rather than me dumping all of it in the comment box
You never cited anything.
Most importantly, some of the enumerated "points"? that you espoused are methodology Quorum uses. I'm sure you can help them out, if this subject is of interest to you.
Good. Means my original claim is validated.
"I'm sure you can help them out, if this subject is of interest to you."
Might. Another survey is long overdo too.