The promise of static typing

Re:The promise of static typing by Muges on Thursday May 19, 2016 @07:43PM (#11734731)

This analysis fails to take into account the popularity of a language. The repository of a library is likely to have more users if it's written in a popular language, and these users will probably report more bugs and feature requests.

Considering this I'm not surprised at all to see that Java, Python and C++ repositories have a higher "bug density" than Clojure, Go or Erlang ones.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The promise of static typing by leoh on Friday May 20, 2016 @01:15AM (#11735677)

What about Ruby?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The promise of static typing by Muges on Friday May 20, 2016 @05:48AM (#11736606)

I'm not saying that this metric measures language popularity, but that language popularity seems to have a big influence on it. I may be wrong, but that's what caught my eye when I read the article. There are plenty of other factors that aren't accounted for, some of which have been pointed out by other commenters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The promise of static typing by akras14 on Friday May 20, 2016 @01:39AM (#11735733)

What about JavaScript?

[ Parent | on HN ]