The scope of the study also seems suspect to me. From the paper:
"The introduced study is a relatively large study with 49 subjects and required for each subject approximately 27 hours pure development time. Including the teaching time for each subject, between 43 and 45 hours working time was required per subject."
If I were working on a software project where I expected 30 hours of development work, I'm not sure static vs dynamic typing would matter at all. I'd pick the language that would get the job done in 30 hours.
I'm surprised this was accepted in a peer-reviewed conference. I'd give this study more credence if this involved the same number of subjects working on or inheriting a much larger, longer-lived code base. Though, based on the subtitle of the paper, it sounds like the author could be convinced otherwise.
"The introduced study is a relatively large study with 49 subjects and required for each subject approximately 27 hours pure development time. Including the teaching time for each subject, between 43 and 45 hours working time was required per subject."
If I were working on a software project where I expected 30 hours of development work, I'm not sure static vs dynamic typing would matter at all. I'd pick the language that would get the job done in 30 hours.
I'm surprised this was accepted in a peer-reviewed conference. I'd give this study more credence if this involved the same number of subjects working on or inheriting a much larger, longer-lived code base. Though, based on the subtitle of the paper, it sounds like the author could be convinced otherwise.