The first thing to consider is that within the (usually) broad guidelines, the communities of Stack Exchange sites have some ability to define what is acceptable for their community. On a couple of occasions, the community of Programmers has decided that simply asking for resources is not a suitable question for the site. Just because other sites allow for reference requests or resource requests does that mean every site has to.
There are two driving factors against allowing resource requests:
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
The close reason for Not Constructive states:
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
Questions that simply ask for resources are not about solving a problem nor do they allow for answers to be supported by facts or expertise that requires human thought to produce. Searching through libraries or databases for documents is something best done by a search engine, not for a question on a Stack Exchange site. Questions should require some kind of human thought, experiences, or expertise in addition to being able to be backed up by a specific situation or reputable resource.
For your specific question, it seems fairly self-evident that it's true. Especially considering that you say that it's an assertion made in several papers. If no citation is provided, that generally means it's considered to be common knowledge. Of course testable code is going to be more stable - testability is often related to the ability of developers to understand the code as well as be able to write tests. Even if no tests are written, code that is easy to understand can be read and problems seen and fixed quickly, making the system more stable. I highly doubt you'll find this studied because it is evident to anyone with any experience in software development.
The first thing to consider is that within the (usually) broad guidelines, the communities of Stack Exchange sites have some ability to define what is acceptable for their community. On a couple of occasions, the community of Programmers has decided that simply asking for resources is not a suitable question for the site. Just because other sites allow for reference requests or resource requests does that mean every site has to.
There are two driving factors against allowing resource requests:
The FAQ states that:
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
The close reason for Not Constructive states:
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
Questions that simply ask for resources are not about solving a problem nor do they allow for answers to be supported by facts or expertise that requires human thought to produce. Searching through libraries or databases for documents is something best done by a search engine, not for a question on a Stack Exchange site. Questions should require some kind of human thought, experiences, or expertise in addition to being able to be backed up by a specific situation or reputable resource.
For your specific question, it seems fairly self-evident that it's true. Especially considering that you say that it's an assertion made in several papers. If no citation is provided, that generally means it's considered to be common knowledge. Of course testable code is going to be more stable - testability is often related to the ability of developers to understand the code as well as be able to write tests. Even if no tests are written, code that is easy to understand can be read and problems seen and fixed quickly, making the system more stable. I highly doubt you'll find this studied because it is evident to anyone with any experience in software development.
The first thing to consider is that within the (usually) broad guidelines, the communities of Stack Exchange sites have some ability to define what is acceptable for their community. On a couple of occasions, the community of Programmers has decided that simply asking for resources is not a suitable question for the site. Just because other sites allow for reference requests or resource requests does that mean every site has to.
There are two driving factors against allowing resource requests:
The FAQ states that:
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
The close reason for Not Constructive states:
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
Questions that simply ask for resources are not about solving a problem nor do they allow for answers to be supported by facts or expertise that requires human thought to produce. Searching through libraries or databases for documents is something best done by a search engine, not for a question on a Stack Exchange site. Questions should require some kind of human thought, experiences, or expertise in addition to being able to be backed up by a specific situation or reputable resource.
For your specific question, it seems fairly self-evident that it's true. Especially considering that you say that it's an assertion made in several papers. If no citation is provided, that generally means it's considered to be common knowledge. Of course testable code is going to be more stable - testability is often related to the ability of developers to understand the code as well as be able to write tests. Even if no tests are written, code that is easy to understand can be read and problems seen and fixed quickly, making the system more stable. I highly doubt you'll find this studied because it is evident to anyone with any experience in software development.
The first thing to consider is that within the (usually) broad guidelines, the communities of Stack Exchange sites have some ability to define what is acceptable for their community. On a couple of occasions, the community of Programmers has decided that simply asking for resources is not a suitable question for the site. Just because other sites allow for reference requests or resource requests does that mean every site has to.
There are two driving factors against allowing resource requests:
The FAQ states that:
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
The close reason for Not Constructive states:
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
Questions that simply ask for resources are not about solving a problem nor do they allow for answers to be supported by facts or expertise that requires human thought to produce. Searching through libraries or databases for documents is something best done by a search engine, not for a question on a Stack Exchange site. Questions should require some kind of human thought, experiences, or expertise in addition to being able to be backed up by a specific situation or reputable resource.
For your specific question, it seems fairly self-evident that it's true. Especially considering that you say that it's an assertion made in several papers. If no citation is provided, that generally means it's considered to be common knowledge . Of course testable code is going to be more stable - testability is often related to the ability of developers to understand the code as well as be able to write tests. Even if no tests are written, code that is easy to understand can be read and problems seen and fixed quickly, making the system more stable. I highly doubt you'll find this studied because it is evident to anyone with any experience in software development.
The first thing to consider is that within the (usually) broad guidelines, the communities of Stack Exchange sites have some ability to define what is acceptable for their community. On a couple of occasions, the community of Programmers has decided that simply asking for resources is not a suitable question for the site. Just because other sites allow for reference requests or resource requests does that mean every site has to.
There are two driving factors against allowing resource requests:
The FAQ states that:
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
The close reason for Not Constructive states:
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
Questions that simply ask for resources are not about solving a problem nor do they allow for answers to be supported by facts or expertise that requires human thought to produce. Searching through libraries or databases for documents is something best done by a search engine, not for a question on a Stack Exchange site. Questions should require some kind of human thought, experiences, or expertise in addition to being able to be backed up by a specific situation or reputable resource.
The first thing to consider is that within the (usually) broad guidelines, the communities of Stack Exchange sites have some ability to define what is acceptable for their community. On a couple of occasions, the community of Programmers has decided that simply asking for resources is not a suitable question for the site. Just because other sites allow for reference requests or resource requests does that mean every site has to.
There are two driving factors against allowing resource requests:
The FAQ states that:
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
The close reason for Not Constructive states:
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
Questions that simply ask for resources are not about solving a problem nor do they allow for answers to be supported by facts or expertise that requires human thought to produce. Searching through libraries or databases for documents is something best done by a search engine, not for a question on a Stack Exchange site. Questions should require some kind of human thought, experiences, or expertise in addition to being able to be backed up by a specific situation or reputable resource.
For your specific question, it seems fairly self-evident that it's true. Especially considering that you say that it's an assertion made in several papers. If no citation is provided, that generally means it's considered to be common knowledge . Of course testable code is going to be more stable - testability is often related to the ability of developers to understand the code as well as be able to write tests. Even if no tests are written, code that is easy to understand can be read and problems seen and fixed quickly, making the system more stable. I highly doubt you'll find this studied because it is evident to anyone with any experience in software development.
The first thing to consider is that within the (usually) broad guidelines, the communities of Stack Exchange sites have some ability to define what is acceptable for their community. On a couple of occasions, the community of Programmers has decided that simply asking for resources is not a suitable question for the site. Just because other sites allow for reference requests or resource requests does that mean every site has to.
There are two driving factors against allowing resource requests:
The FAQ states that:
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
The close reason for Not Constructive states:
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
Questions that simply ask for resources are not about solving a problem nor do they allow for answers to be supported by facts or expertise that requires human thought to produce. Searching through libraries or databases for documents is something best done by a search engine, not for a question on a Stack Exchange site. Questions should require some kind of human thought, experiences, or expertise in addition to being able to be backed up by a specific situation or reputable resource.