zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. jmtull+(OP)[view] [source] 2015-03-25 22:29:25
In my opinion, bug count scales within a code base with code length, but you can't really compare languages and say that the shorter one must contain fewer bugs. A more expressive language means you can cram more bugs in fewer lines.
replies(1): >>Alexan+b
2. Alexan+b[view] [source] 2015-03-25 22:31:39
>>jmtull+(OP)
Take a look at this: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/185660/is-the...

Bug counts/kloc seem to be consistent across languages.

replies(1): >>Alexan+U
◧◩
3. Alexan+U[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-03-25 22:40:21
>>Alexan+b
To add to this, implementing a bunch of boilerplate often means copy/pasting code. That means you risk introducing mistakes where one copy is wrong[1].

[1] http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0260/

replies(1): >>NateDa+9f
◧◩◪
4. NateDa+9f[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-03-26 02:01:25
>>Alexan+U
You assume that Go's simplicity means you end up copying and pasting a lot of code. This is just not the case. In juju (https://github.com/juju/juju), a ~300kloc project, we have approximately one single type that we've copy & pasted where a generic implementation would have been better (it's a set). And honestly, implementing full set functionality was not even really necessary, someone just felt like doing it.
[go to top]