Do Strongly Typed Languages Reduce Bugs? (acolyer.org)

"Static vs dynamic typing is always one of those topics that attracts passionately held positions," writes the Morning Paper -- reporting on an "encouraging" study that attempted to empirically evaluate the efficacy of statically-typed systems on mature, real-world code bases. The study was conducted by Christian Bird at Microsoft's "Research in Software Engineering" group with two researchers from University College London. Long-time Slashdot reader phantomfive writes: This study looked at bugs found in open source Javascript code. Looking through the commit history, they enumerated the bugs that would have been caught if a more strongly typed language (like Typescript) had been used. They found that a strongly typed language would have reduced bugs by 15%.

Does this make you want to avoid Python?

Comments

You have to look at the source

[Heebie]

>>> The study was conducted by Christian Bird at Microsoft's...

This came from Microsoft, so most likely the premise for the study was specifically designed to generate results that would strongly suggest that one of Microsoft's horrid, awful, crap, packages would be superior to some free open-source package. (It looks like Python and Javascript are being targeted by Microsoft, in order to try and supplant it with their Typescript crapola.)

As far as I'm concerned, the source of this study makes it "fake news" and junk-computer-science.

Re:You have to look at the source

[LifesABeach]

If one uses Strongly Typed Languages, one gets fewer Strongly Typed Language errors; only.