This is absolutely not true.
> Since the code is 1/3rd of the size it contains 1/3rd of the bugs.
That is made up and contrary to all empirical evidence I've ever collected.
I'd be curious if you have a source, but I doubt it.
Infact, you could just try it out for yourself.
But here is your internet source for this blatantly obvious fact: https://games.greggman.com/game/dynamic-typing-static-typing...
> But here is your internet source for this blatantly obvious fact: https://games.greggman.com/game/dynamic-typing-static-typing...
Ah no I meant a proper peer reviewed source. The claim that untyped code has fewer bugs is completely bonkers, so I was quite sure that no such source existed.
Why do you think microsoft, google and facebook are all in the business of typechecking python? If typechecking would actually introduce bugs, it'd be better not doing it right?
Using github for statistics is flawed. There are millions of 10 line js libraries. Yes it's easy to not make type mistakes in 10 lines. I suppose that type errors increase more than linearly with size.
Not really. It is, however, quite expensive to measure, because dynamic typing really shines at the evolution of software, that is being able to respond fast to changing requirements. Legos vs play-doh: https://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2008/11/9/legos-play-doh-and-pr...
> Why do you think microsoft, google and facebook are all in the business of typechecking
A billion flies can't be wrong? Companies with unlimited amount of money are not the right place to search for good practices. Both Facebook and Google became flush with cash way before modern type obsession. Sure, once you are a multi-billion dollar company slowing down can be a good thing. But you need to get there first.
> If typechecking would actually introduce bugs, it'd be better not doing it right?
If sugar caused us to die sooner, we'd be better to eating too much if it, right? And yet, here we are.
There are plenty of academic sources that will tell you that the number of bugs in a program is directly proportional to the number of lines in the program and static typing has no effect on this.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2898571/basis-for-claim-...
Additionally, statically typed code involves large amounts of boilerplate code in the form of abstract base classes, interfaces, generics, templating, etc. It's a very verbose code style.
It's your turn, find an academic source to backup your claim that static typing reduces the number of bugs. Cause it just isn't true.
Microsoft, google and Facebook have a lot of programmers coming from languages with static typing and want to make Python more familiar.
It's a far distance away from anything resembling good practice.
Actual Python houses typically don't use static typing.
Correct if you misapply a tool to the wrong situation you get poor or negative results.
The right tools are unit testing, integration testing, uat and automated whole system testing.
