> that only tries to show a single study is flawed, nothing else
no the study failed to show any difference in bug count for a specific set of common used languages, where C and Python were both part of the dataset.
I don't think programming languages have a big impact on bugs per line when every line is written by a human. Now given that I was talking about bug counts, not severity.
it showed errors in the methodology of an earlier study, it did not produce a novel result.
kind of reminds me how the "research" suggests that there are no practical differences between dynamically typed and statically typed languages...except we know from practical experience that there is, and the literature there is horribly flawed.
we have real-world evidence that rust leads to significantly less bugs in the real world
that only tries to show a single study is flawed, nothing else
do you think bugs/loc is the same between brainfuck and rust?
> that only tries to show a single study is flawed, nothing else
no the study failed to show any difference in bug count for a specific set of common used languages, where C and Python were both part of the dataset.
I don't think programming languages have a big impact on bugs per line when every line is written by a human. Now given that I was talking about bug counts, not severity.
it showed errors in the methodology of an earlier study, it did not produce a novel result.
kind of reminds me how the "research" suggests that there are no practical differences between dynamically typed and statically typed languages...except we know from practical experience that there is, and the literature there is horribly flawed.
we have real-world evidence that rust leads to significantly less bugs in the real world
https://blog.google/security/rust-in-android-move-fast-fix-t...
1 reply →