  Berger et al., published in TOPLAS 2019, is a critique of our 2014 FSE
conference abstract and its archival version, the 2017 CACM paper: A
Large-Scale Study of Programming Languages and Code Quality in Github. In their
paper Berger et al. make academic claims about the veracity of our work. Here,
we respond to their technical and scientific critiques aimed at our work,
attempting to stick with scientific discourse. We find that Berger et al.
largely replicated our results, and agree with us in their conclusion: that the
effects (in a statistical sense) found in the data are small, and should be
taken with caution, and that it is possible that an absence of effect is the
correct interpretation. Thus, our CACM paper's conclusions still hold, even
more so now that they have been reproduced, and our paper is eminently citable.
