this is theoretically, empirically, and objectively wrong. akin to saying that you can get into an accident in a truck as well as a motorcycle, so in 99% of cases there is no difference in safety.
different kind of programming languages change the kinds of bugs and their properties, but it does not change the amount of bugs per line of code. in respect to C and rust for example, rust may have less memory bugs - which LLMs seems to be able to spot now - but it did increase supply chain attacks for example.
> that only tries to show a single study is flawed, nothing else
no the study failed to show any difference in bug count for a specific set of common used languages, where C and Python were both part of the dataset.
I don't think programming languages have a big impact on bugs per line when every line is written by a human. Now given that I was talking about bug counts, not severity.
it showed errors in the methodology of an earlier study, it did not produce a novel result.
kind of reminds me how the "research" suggests that there are no practical differences between dynamically typed and statically typed languages...except we know from practical experience that there is, and the literature there is horribly flawed.
we have real-world evidence that rust leads to significantly less bugs in the real world
> it showed errors in the methodology of an earlier study, it did not produce a novel result.
It showed that there's no big difference. From the link:
> Combining corrections for all of these aforementioned items, the reanalysis revealed that only 4 out of the original 11 languages correlated with abnormal defect rates, and even for those the effect size is exceedingly small.
--
> we have real-world evidence that rust leads to significantly less bugs in the real world
no, we only have evidence for memory bugs, that's not what I was talking about
[–] pheggs 2 days ago
[–] orf 2 days ago
You are really uninformed: different programming languages have very different volumes of bugs per line of code
[–] pheggs 2 days ago
[–] slopinthebag 2 days ago
do you think bugs/loc is the same between brainfuck and rust?
[–] pheggs 2 days ago
no the study failed to show any difference in bug count for a specific set of common used languages, where C and Python were both part of the dataset.
I don't think programming languages have a big impact on bugs per line when every line is written by a human. Now given that I was talking about bug counts, not severity.
[–] slopinthebag 2 days ago
kind of reminds me how the "research" suggests that there are no practical differences between dynamically typed and statically typed languages...except we know from practical experience that there is, and the literature there is horribly flawed.
we have real-world evidence that rust leads to significantly less bugs in the real world
https://blog.google/security/rust-in-android-move-fast-fix-t...
[–] pheggs 2 days ago
It showed that there's no big difference. From the link:
> Combining corrections for all of these aforementioned items, the reanalysis revealed that only 4 out of the original 11 languages correlated with abnormal defect rates, and even for those the effect size is exceedingly small.
--
> we have real-world evidence that rust leads to significantly less bugs in the real world
no, we only have evidence for memory bugs, that's not what I was talking about