This analysis is flawed. The input variables are not controlled, nor do the conclusions logically follow from the data. I could make an almost opposite conclusion with the same data:
Based on bug density we clearly see that static typed languages are the best for identifying bugs.
The fact that the "data" can be used to draw very opposing conclusions would indicate a fatal flaw in the analysis. This is a sensational piece with no merit as research.
Thanks for the comment!
I would completely agree with your conclusion if the bugs from statically typed languages were all compilation errors. I suspect they are not.
Also, I could agree if the bug density of statically typed languages weren't all over the place. Note that Go is statically typed and one of the languages that I would call simple.
The post is not research. It doesn't say so anywhere, the post says "naïve", "not conclusive" and "opinion".
For research, read the link near the word naïve.
Also I would suggest to read the comments and watch the videos from Blaine. They are very cool and probably closer to your taste.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.