4 ms·

Well, this paper found that a conservative underestimate of 15% of bugs would be saved through static typing: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-conte

• chrisseaton 4y ago
  > I'm not sure what evidence your fact is based on, feel free to present some evidence for it. The linked meta-study in the article we're commenting on. https://danluu.com/empirical-pl/ https://danluu.com/empirical-pl/ "under the specific set of circumstances described in the studies, any effect, if it exists at all, is small" And this question has generated the most rebuttals and retractions I've ever seen for flawed studies in computer science - it's notorious. Remember this? https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3340571 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3340571 > Well, this paper found that a conservative underestimate of 15% of bugs would be saved through static typing Yeah does look that one shows a larger effect and has not been rebutted or retracted. One positive measurement against many negative measurements.