Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A Study of Bug Resolution Characteristics in Popular Programming Languages

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1801.01025 v2 pith:QJ52Y5AH submitted 2018-01-03 cs.SE

A Study of Bug Resolution Characteristics in Popular Programming Languages

classification cs.SE
keywords resolutionlanguagestimeprogrammingprojectstypedapparentcharacteristics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper presents a large-scale study that investigates the bug resolution characteristics among popular Github projects written in different programming languages. We explore correlations but, of course, we cannot infer causation. Specifically, we analyse bug resolution data from approximately 70 million Source Line of Code, drawn from 3 million commits to 600 GitHub projects, primarily written in 10 programming languages. We find notable variations in apparent bug resolution time and patch (fix) size. While interpretation of results from such large-scale empirical studies is inherently difficult, we believe that the differences in medians are sufficiently large to warrant further investigation, replication, re-analysis and follow up research. For example, in our corpus, the median apparent bug resolution time (elapsed time from raise to resolve) for Ruby was 4X that for Go and 2.5X for Java. We also found that patches tend to touch more files for the corpus of strongly typed and for statically typed programs. However, we also found evidence for a lower elapsed resolution time for bug resolution committed to projects constructed from statically typed languages. These findings, if replicated in subsequent follow on studies, may shed further empirical light on the debate about the importance of static typing.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.