From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:31:48 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <6189fb462ab1b39c555f0621c03ce49f@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <fbe85488224eddfc2e10df4c894bacb9@proxima.alt.za>
References: <fbe85488224eddfc2e10df4c894bacb9@proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] c++
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e152cfee-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu Nov 22 11:15:36 EST 2012, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > and even that aside, can you cite studies that show that the choice of programming
> > language is the dominant term in determining the error rate of the resulting
> > code?
>
> Come on, Erik, are you suggesting that because there are no studies,
> the situation could not exist?

i don't know that they do or don't.  but to me that was the clear
assumption.

my hunch is that there is more evidence that development practice
and culture have a stronger bearing on the quality of the code than
the implementation language.

for example, the folks who wrote the space shuttle software
(originally ibm) downplayed their language, but made a point of
talking about how they developed code.

their results were quite good.  one software-caused failsafe in
all the launches.

so that's just an anecdote.  i'd like to know more about the subject.

- erik