Transformer-based language models for automatic code completion have shown great promise so far, yet the evaluation of these models rarely uses real data. This study provides both quantitative and qualitative assessments of three public code language models when completing real-world code. We first developed an open-source IDE extension, Code4Me, for the online evaluation of the models. We collected real auto-completion usage data for over a year from more than 1200 users, resulting in over 600K valid completions. These models were then evaluated using six standard metrics across twelve programming languages. Next, we conducted a qualitative study of 1690 real-world completion requests to identify the reasons behind the poor model performance. A comparative analysis of the models' performance in online and offline settings was also performed, using benchmark synthetic datasets and two masking strategies.

The recent advancements in Transformer-based Language Models have demonstrated significant potential in enhancing the multilingual capabilities of these models. The remarkable progress made in this domain not only applies to natural language tasks but also extends to the domain of programming languages. Despite the ability of these models to learn from multiple languages, evaluations typically focus on particular combinations of the same languages. In this study, we evaluate the similarity of programming languages by analyzing their representations using a CodeBERT-based model. Our experiments reveal that token representation in languages such as C++, Python, and Java exhibit proximity to one another, whereas the same tokens in languages such as Mathematica and R display significant dissimilarity. Our findings suggest that this phenomenon can potentially result in performance challenges when dealing with diverse languages. Thus, we recommend using our similarity measure to select a diverse set of programming languages when training and evaluating future models.