Re:The promise of static typing
by reverius42 on Thursday May 19, 2016 @07:10PM
(#11734564)
This analysis seems a bit shallow and I'm not sure what point it's trying to prove. There are a lot of factors that aren't accounted for (as other commenters point out, project size is a major one), and a few others I can think of that would affect the metric used (apparently bugs/repo):
* Project management strategy for the repo/project.
* Commercial vs. non-commercial project.
* Ability and experience of the developers.
* Popularity of the project.
* Type of project (library, application, etc.)
I suspect all of these will correlate in a meaningful way with the language choice. Commercially produced or consumed projects may be more likely to have comprehensive bug reporting/tracking, and are more likely to be in a "mainstream" language, for instance.
Like Torvalds says, with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. A corollary to that could be that without knowing how many eyeballs there are, and how well they can see, you don't really know how many bugs there are, either.
* Project management strategy for the repo/project.
* Commercial vs. non-commercial project.
* Ability and experience of the developers.
* Popularity of the project.
* Type of project (library, application, etc.)
I suspect all of these will correlate in a meaningful way with the language choice. Commercially produced or consumed projects may be more likely to have comprehensive bug reporting/tracking, and are more likely to be in a "mainstream" language, for instance.
Like Torvalds says, with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. A corollary to that could be that without knowing how many eyeballs there are, and how well they can see, you don't really know how many bugs there are, either.