good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
Re^3: regexp classby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Sep 02, 2011 at 23:11 UTC||Need Help??|
The logical extreme of this is that golfed code contains the fewest bugs.
You missed the ultimate silly extreme. No code means no bugs. Try and disprove that :)
Taking good ideas to silly extremes does not disprove them as good ideas.
For a huge proportion of the population -- of almost anywhere -- eating less is a good idea. That starving yourself causes death does not disprove that.
I think that "less code means less bugs" is a nice catchphrase, but that noone has actually proven this.
Actually, they have. Over and over.
When FORTRAN and COBOL took over from assembler, it was clearly demonstrated that more code was written more quickly with considerably less bugs.
And given equivalent skills and testing regimes, coding in Perl will result in less bugs than writing in C.
And if the anecdotal evidence isn't self-evident enough for you, I'll try and dig up references to some of the research I was party to back in the '80s. Though I'm not sure I'll be able to access it.
In the mean time, try looking in the Haskell world. It's one of their mantras and they usually back their stuff up with research.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.