4 ms·
The OP argues that although programs written in dynamic languages are smaller, they have more bugs. But empirical studies find the opposite: bug counts grow sup
by gruseom 15y ago
The OP argues that although programs written in dynamic languages are smaller, they have more bugs. But empirical studies find the opposite: bug counts grow superlinearly with program length irrespective of language. In fact, program length is the best predictor of error rate we know. So his argument contradicts the evidence.
Chapter 27 of Code Complete (2nd ed.) discusses this. So does http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3037293 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3037293 among other HN threads. Also, if anyone has access to Capers Jones' "The Impact of Program Size" from Programming Productivity (1986) and is feeling generous, please cite the relevant findings. I can't find it online.
- jmount 15y agoThe empirical evidence is as you say. It just hasn't been my experience that code bases with the same number of tracked defects are all the same. Some are brittle and littered with rare lurking bugs (rare in the test environment, but guaranteed to be hit by many in production) and other code bases are much more stable. I think this depends on the style, the rigor of design and the discipline seen throughout development. So even if my experience with static typed code bases has been more pleasant, dome of that could be due to the type of developer that uses them.