Do software engineers use autocompletion features differently than other developers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autocomplete is a common workspace feature that is used to recommend code snippets as developers type in their IDEs. Users of autocomplete features no longer need to remember programming syntax and the names and details of the API methods that are needed to accomplish tasks. Moreover, autocompletion of code snippets may have an accelerating effect, lowering the number of keystrokes that are needed to type the code. However, like any tool, implicit tendencies of users may emerge. Knowledge of how developers in different roles use autocompletion features may help to guide future autocompletion development, research, and training material. In this paper, we set out to better understand how usage of autocompletion varies among software engineers and other developers (i.e., academic researchers, industry researchers, hobby programmers, and students). Analysis of autocompletion events in the Mining Software Repositories (MSR) challenge dataset reveals that: (1) rates of autocompletion usage among software engineers and other developers are not significantly different; and (2) although several non-negligible effect sizes of autocompletion targets (e.g., local variables, method names) are detected between the two groups, the rates at which these targets appear do not vary to a significant degree. These inconclusive results are likely due to the small sample size (n = 35); however, they do provide an interesting insight for future studies to build upon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".