4 ms·
The data shows that you see 3% bugs that could have been fixed with static typing. 97% are from other things. Mind you this area has not been studied much and n
by nickbauman 10y ago
The data shows that you see 3% bugs that could have been fixed with static typing. 97% are from other things. Mind you this area has not been studied much and needs more research, but that's what we know now.
- lmm 10y agoI simply don't believe that when it's so utterly contrary to my experience. How did they define a bug as not being fixable with static typing?
- nickbauman 10y agoThis seems to be a very common situation with programmers. When presented with evidence to the contrary, we all of us tend to respond in this sort of "it's wrong because it conflicts with my experience". You realize this is essentially the classic flat earther denial. I'm not picking on you: I've done it too. It seems to be an industry hazard.
- lmm 10y agoI think there's a level at which you have to be willing to believe your own eyes over the consensus. And there are levels of how established the consensus is. Perhaps it's particularly common for programmers because the industry moves so quickly, so all of us can quote previous established wisdom that turned out to be utterly wrong.