Python is increasingly becoming the lingua franca for developing Machine Learning (ML) systems, thanks to a rich ecosystem of libraries and an emphasis on readability. In this context, Pythonic idioms are seen as stylistic conventions that support maintainable and efficient code. Conversely, Refactorable-Pythonic idioms refer to patterns that can be refactored into more idiomatic Python, improving code quality in terms of maintainability, performance, and clarity. While the assumptions about idiomaticity are widely accepted in practice, the extent to which Pythonic or Refactorable-Pythonic idioms relate to software quality in ML projects has not been systematically validated. To address this lack of empirical evidence, this paper conducts a large-scale study to assess how Pythonic and Refactorable-Pythonic idioms are related to code quality in ML systems. We analyze 303 open-source Python projects from the NICHE dataset, distinguishing between “well-engineered” (i.e., projects that adopt structured development practices such as testing, CI, documentation, and packaging) and “non-engineered” (i.e., projects that lack such characteristics). Our analysis proceeds in two main phases: (i) idiom detection, where we extract Pythonic and Refactorable-Pythonic code patterns using a combination of existing and custom detectors; and (ii) quality assessment, where we detect Python-specific smells and relate them to code metrics and other quality indicators. Truth Value Test and Assign Multiple Targets are the most common Pythonic and Refactorable-Pythonic idioms, respectively. In “well-engineered” projects, both idiom types positively correlate with Python-specific code smells, suggesting that idiomatic usage does not always align with higher code quality. In contrast, in “non-engineered” projects, the presence of smells is more strongly influenced by structural factors such as the number of lines of code, complexity, and commit activity. We conclude by distilling lessons learned, implications, and future research directions.

Abstract Software reusability mechanisms, like inheritance and delegation in Object-Oriented programming, are widely recognized as key instruments of software design that reduce the risks of source code being affected by defects, other than to reduce the effort required to maintain and evolve source code. Previous work has traditionally employed source code reuse metrics for prediction purposes, e.g., in the context of defect prediction. However, our research identifies two noticeable limitations of the current literature. First, still little is known about the extent to which developers actually employ code reuse mechanisms over time. Second, it is still unclear how these mechanisms may contribute to explaining defect-proneness and mainten0ance effort during software evolution. We aim at bridging this gap of knowledge, as an improved understanding of these aspects might provide insights into the actual support provided by these mechanisms, e.g., by suggesting whether and how to use them for prediction purposes. We propose an exploratory study, conducted on 12Javaprojects–over 44,900 commits–of theDefects4Jdataset, aiming at (1) assessing how developers use inheritance and delegation during software evolution; and (2) statistically analyzing the impact of inheritance and delegation on fault proneness and maintenance effort. Our results let emerge various usage patterns that describe the way inheritance and delegation vary over time. In addition, we find out that inheritance and delegation are statistically significant factors that influence both source code defect-proneness and maintenance effort.