FEWER bugs. Jesus people. If you can count em, use 'fewer'.
Also, it's comparing time to count. Does 90% fewer bugs make up for the lost time? Are serious, systematic defects caught by tests? I suppose I should read the paper.
Also, it's comparing time to count. Does 90% fewer bugs make up for the lost time? Are serious, systematic defects caught by tests? I suppose I should read the paper.
How accurate is to compare the various project teams? It always seems to me that no two projects and no two dev teams are ever the same. How do you account for the differences? The researcher somewhat addresses this but I am not fully convinced:
>>"...The projects developed using TDD might have been easier to develop, as there can never be an accurate equal comparison between two projects except in a controlled case study. In our case studies, we alleviated this concern to some degree by the fact that these systems were compared within the same organization (with the same higher-level manager and subculture).Therefore, the complexity of the TDD and non-TDD projects are comparable..."
Perhaps more data needs to be collected.
I hadn't realized Christians were necessarily language prescriptivists. If we were necessarily language prescriptivists, I would have to tell you that "em" should be written as "them", or in the alternative written as "'em" to emphasize the omission of the first two letters. I might also go on to mention that you mean systemic, not systematic. Systemic means occurring across a system, systematic means planned and ordered, as in a system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
But we're not necessarily language prescriptivists so, whee, you can write how you want to write and we can understand what you've written because it is communicative even if not "correct" as defined by reference to static "authoritative" definitions.