3 ms·

So your assumption is that most to all defects are language related and not programmer error? I will bet the farm your defect rate will remain the same without

by consp 4y ago

So your assumption is that most to all defects are language related and not programmer error? I will bet the farm your defect rate will remain the same without any actual validation of what people write. Plenty of errors due to language quirks but lots of times I see missing statements, fixed values which should be variable, input checking failures due to unknown input, incorrect assumptions and lots of non language gelated bugs which will not go away.

green_on_black 4y ago
You're not accounting for the fact that Rust ships with a mandatory static analyzer called rustc. Btw Google recently gave a talk about switching from Java to Kotlin, which significantly reduced bugs, despite less mature tooling. So...
lmm 4y ago
> So your assumption is that most to all defects are language related What does that even mean? > I will bet the farm your defect rate will remain the same without any actual validation of what people write. In what sense is a typechecker (or the rust borrow checker) not "actual validation", but a static analyser is? > Plenty of errors due to language quirks but lots of times I see missing statements, fixed values which should be variable, input checking failures due to unknown input, incorrect assumptions and lots of non language gelated bugs Most of those sound like type errors to me. Errors where the program isn't doing what the programmer thought it should can generally be avoided by using more precise types. (The more insidious case is where the program is doing exactly what the programmer thought it should, but they've misunderstood the specification or not thought through the implications - but no kind of testing can catch that kind of bug).
iopq 4y ago
Rust does validation of what people write, it won't let you make a dangling pointer, whereas C will happily accept it if you hide it from the warning heuristics

by consp 4y ago

green_on_black 4y ago

You're not accounting for the fact that Rust ships with a mandatory static analyzer called rustc. Btw Google recently gave a talk about switching from Java to Kotlin, which significantly reduced bugs, despite less mature tooling. So...

lmm 4y ago

> So your assumption is that most to all defects are language related What does that even mean? > I will bet the farm your defect rate will remain the same without any actual validation of what people write. In what sense is a typechecker (or the rust borrow checker) not "actual validation", but a static analyser is? > Plenty of errors due to language quirks but lots of times I see missing statements, fixed values which should be variable, input checking failures due to unknown input, incorrect assumptions and lots of non language gelated bugs Most of those sound like type errors to me. Errors where the program isn't doing what the programmer thought it should can generally be avoided by using more precise types. (The more insidious case is where the program is doing exactly what the programmer thought it should, but they've misunderstood the specification or not thought through the implications - but no kind of testing can catch that kind of bug).

iopq 4y ago

Rust does validation of what people write, it won't let you make a dangling pointer, whereas C will happily accept it if you hide it from the warning heuristics