On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:03 AM, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:21:39 PM UTC+5:30, Neil Cerutti wrote: > >> I can't think of a reference, but I to recall that > >> bugs-per-line-of-code is nearly constant; it is not language > >> dependent. So, unscientifically, the more work you can get done > >> in a line of code, then the fewer bugs you'll have per amount of > >> work done. > > > If its true that bugs per line of code is more or less a constant, I think the key is that some languages are more expressive than others. So, in assembler, you are moving data around registers, and doing basic math, etc. It takes a lot of code to get something done. So maybe more bugs. Moving up the ladder to C, which is in a way high level assembly language, you get more done in few lines. Python or other languages maybe do more per line than C (eg the for loop in python does a lot with very little code because of python having iterable stuff built in) So, if you have a language that is expressive and fits your programming needs, you will have less to debug -- not because you don't make as many errors, but the good code just does more for you -- Joel Goldstick http://joelgoldstick.com
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
