News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread by exdsq on Monday March 02, 2020 @04:52AM (#22463022)
Can you reference "Types solve 2% of programming errors"? I've read numerous research papers and blogs on this topic and have never seen anything as low as 2%.

Edit: Googled and nope, can't find anything.

Re:Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread by didibus on Monday March 02, 2020 @02:43PM (#22468077)
Here are some which look at GitHub for various languages and count the defect rates by analysing commit messages:

https://dev.to/danlebrero/the-broken-promise-of-static-typin...

https://www.i-programmer.info/news/98-languages/11184-which-...

https://nextjournal.com/PRL-PRG/toplas-analysis

One thing to note is that the absolute difference in terms of bugs from the worst language to the best is still minimal. So language choice doesn't seem to make or break software.

Another thing to note is that while overall static languages faired better in terms of having lower defects, Clojure did best of all.

I knew of another one but can't find it again.

Then there are a few where they had beginner programmers implement trivial programs in different programming language and checked how many errors/time it took them. But I consider those all pretty bad since the experiments are so reductionist. So I won't list them. They aren't conclusive either. Some end up saying static and dynamic are same, some say dynamic is more productive at equal defect, and some say static had less defects at equal productivity.

Re:Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread by slowmovintarget on Monday March 02, 2020 @03:51PM (#22468825)