Investigating Technology Usage Span by Analyzing Users' Q&A Traces in Stack Overflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choosing an appropriate software development technology (e.g., programming language) is challenging due to the proliferation of diverse options. The selection of inappropriate technologies for development may have a far-reaching effect on software developers' career growth. Switching to a different technology after working with one may lead to a complex learning curve and, thus, be more challenging. Therefore, it is crucial for software developers to find technologies that have a high usage span. Intuitively, the usage span of a technology can be deter-mined by the time span developers have used that technology. Existing literature focuses on the technology landscape to explore the complex and implicit dependencies among technologies but lacks formal studies to draw insights about their usage span. This paper investigates the technology usage span by analyzing the question and answering (Q&A) traces of Stack Overflow (SO), the largest technical Q&A website available to date. In particular, we analyze 6.7 million Q&A traces posted by about 97K active SO users and see what technologies have appeared in their questions or answers over 15 years. According to our analysis, C# and Java programming languages have a high usage span, followed by JavaScript. Besides, developers used the. NET framework, iO <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$S$</tex> & Windows Operating Systems (OS), and SQL query language for a long time (on average). Our study also exposes the emerging (i.e., newly growing) technologies. For example, usages of technologies such as SwiftUI,. NET-6.0, Visual Studio 2022, and Blazor WebAssembly framework are increasing. The findings from our study can assist novice developers, startup software industries, and software users in determining appropriate technologies. This also establishes an initial benchmark for future investigation on the use span of software technologies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".