"The "industry standard" is somewhere closer to 15-50 defects for every 1000 lines of code in production. Between being written and released, code passes through pair programming, rich IDEs, static analysis, unit testing, continuous integration, code reviews, integration testing and release candidates. At every step more errors are detected, accounting for the difference between defects in fresh code and defects in production."
"All of of these techniques are now widely used in the industry (with the possible exceptions of pair programming and code reviews), but they are running into a wall of diminishing returns. It's becoming increasingly costly to add new classes of error to static analysis, or to move code coverage from 80% to 90%. Going from 10% to 20% was much easier."
"Weaving a thread throughout these numbers, one idea is pervasive; the defect rate seems unaffected by the choice of programming language. So 1 in every 10 lines of Scala will contain a defect, as will 1 in every 10 lines of assembly. This is important when considering how many lines of code that each of these languages need in order to implement the same feature."
Freshly written code commonly contains about one defect per ten lines, while production defect rates range roughly from 15 to 50 defects per thousand lines. Code moves through many detection stages—pair programming, IDEs, static analysis, unit and integration testing, continuous integration, code reviews and release candidates—each finding additional errors. Widely used detection techniques are experiencing diminishing returns and rising costs to catch new error classes or improve coverage. The defect creation rate appears largely independent of programming language, so reducing the number of lines of code reduces created defects. Studies show Scala implementations often need 3x–10x fewer lines than Java, indicating substantial accidental complexity in more verbose languages.
Read at Artima
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]