re: The broken promise of static typing VIEW POST

VIEW PARENT COMMENT VIEW FULL DISCUSSION

I like how you go on to say that the analysis is "fatally flawed", but don't explain how. If the author did some kind of data manipulation that favored one language (or paradigm) over another, that would be a sign of being "fatally flawed", but it seems like there's no other explanation for the observed data other than the author's conclusion. Obviously, it doesn't meet scientific standards for being conclusive, however, why should we prefer an opposite statement (that static types are more bug-free) by default over the author's statement (that more simplistic languages are more bug-free)? Clearly, the data is in favor of the latter statement.

"100% test coverage of a dynamic language that Uncle Bob's talking about doesn't mean there are no bugs. And it certainly doesn't mean you've covered every execution path of the code."
This seems to be very far from what the author was talking about. I think you might have misunderstood the article.

fatally flawed

Here are some alternate explanations of the data, all hypotheticals that should be considered before OPs conclusion is accepted as an accurate interpretation of his data:

  1. Practitioners of different languages have different reporting habits: they call different things "bugs", they report with varying frequencies, they tend to not care about reporting bugs as much as building the next feature, etc.

  2. Bugs are different sizes, so while haskell and python might both have "1 bug", the cost of that bug could vary wildly.

  3. There's a ratio of "bugs per feature", so more productive languages show up as more buggy.

  4. Bugs are labeled differently, IE perhaps haskell projects tend to have nice "bug" labels just because static typists are more OCD about it, where as a python project might have a million bugs, but no one labeled them as such. (related to my bullet #1)

I agree with others in the comments, in order to appropriately draw up causal relationships, one would need to construct an appropriate experiment. Double-blind-placebo-controlled-randomized might be a bit tough to construct, although the closer to that one could be, the better.

Perhaps one could construct a randomized crossover though, and that would finally lend some actionable insights into the problem?

I'm not the GP, but I'm guessing that he was thinking of the fact that this could simply mean that more bugs are reported on F# projects, not that more bugs exist.

code of conduct - report abuse