SCIENCE GANG FIGHT I've pretty closely read both papers from a conf talk on empirical engineering, and now I gotta read the rebuttal super closely, toohttps://twitter.com/vlfilkov/status/1196714347403202560 …
-
-
The 2017 CACM paper fixes some of the bigger flaws, like counting V8 as Typescript, but is still very questionable. Have you read the replication? https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3340571 … It's really good (and the target of the refutation).
-
Yeah, it's better, but IMO the methodology is fundamentally bogus. But even if the methodology could work, the errors in the paper are bizarre. Confusing memory safety and implicit coercion, statements like the screenshot, etc. None of the 4 authors noticed or knew better?pic.twitter.com/MZdX6rpPF6
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And is it just me or is this a very strange abstract? "...Thus, our CACM paper's conclusions still hold, even more so now that they have been reproduced, and OUR PAPER IS EMINENTLY CITABLE." [emphasis mine]
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.