«

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03...safety_report/

regards

Thing

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:11:22 +1300, thing2 wrote:

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03...safety_report/
>
> regards
>
> Thing

I say! That's an excellent report. And it will lead to those bugs it did
find being reported and fixed.

0.32 bugs per thousand lines of code in the LAMP stack. Excellent!

Thanks for posting that URL, Thing.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux,
and it does all the things that they want."

thing2 wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03...safety_report/
>

I remember seeing a report like this 2 or 3 years ago, it found that open
source code had way fewer bugs than proprietary code.


Peter

Hello Have A Nice Cup of Tea,

> 0.32 bugs per thousand lines of code in the LAMP stack. Excellent!

lol... i take it you are easealy sucked in with numbers ?

i have some numbers for you

one thousand lines of code, even in a managed language like .net where a
lot is done for you, isnt really that much. one thousand lines in a more
lower level language like C/++ is even less.

my BIT third year project had an estimated line count somewhere in the thirty
five to forty thousand lines, written in .net 1.1 - and not what i would
call a 'complex application'.

and my bug count .... **** all, my data / middle / web-service tiers were
bug free - all my bugs were in UI land.

just to put that 0.32 bugs per 1000 lines into perspective.

----------------
Steven H

the madGeek

> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:11:22 +1300, thing2 wrote:
>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03...safety_report/
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Thing
>>
> I say! That's an excellent report. And it will lead to those bugs it
> did find being reported and fixed.
>
> 0.32 bugs per thousand lines of code in the LAMP stack. Excellent!
>
> Thanks for posting that URL, Thing.
>
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>

Steven H wrote:

> Hello Have A Nice Cup of Tea,
>
>> 0.32 bugs per thousand lines of code in the LAMP stack. Excellent!
>
> lol... i take it you are easealy sucked in with numbers ?
>
> i have some numbers for you
>
> one thousand lines of code, even in a managed language like .net where a
> lot is done for you, isnt really that much. one thousand lines in a more
> lower level language like C/++ is even less.
>
> my BIT third year project had an estimated line count somewhere in the
> thirty five to forty thousand lines, written in .net 1.1 - and not what i
> would call a 'complex application'.
>
> and my bug count .... **** all, my data / middle / web-service tiers were
> bug free - all my bugs were in UI land.
>
> just to put that 0.32 bugs per 1000 lines into perspective.
>
> ----------------
> Steven H


er steven, whilst I have no doubt your code had a low bug count, perhaps an
actual number or three might put more perspective on it?
so far I see.. 0.32/1000 vs **** all
which means bugger all (to me) and 0.32/1000 vs ??/1000 would be much
betterer
Ta

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 06:25:35 +0000, Steven H wrote:

> my BIT third year project had an estimated line count somewhere in the
> thirty five to forty thousand lines, written in .net 1.1 - and not what i
> would call a 'complex application'.

Your project had an "estimated" line count? Don't you even know how many
lines you wrote??


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux,
and it does all the things that they want."

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:37:32 +1300, Shane wrote:

> er steven, whilst I have no doubt your code had a low bug count, perhaps
> an actual number or three might put more perspective on it? so far I see..
> 0.32/1000 vs **** all
> which means bugger all (to me) and 0.32/1000 vs ??/1000 would be much
> betterer
> Ta

He doesn't even know how many lines of code he wrote. If he doesn't know
that, then how is he supposed to know how many bugs he's got in that code.
And if he actually knows how many bugs he's got, then why hasn't he fixed
them!


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux,
and it does all the things that they want."

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:11:22 +1300, thing2 wrote:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03...safety_report/
>
> I say! That's an excellent report. And it will lead to those bugs it did
> find being reported and fixed.
>
> 0.32 bugs per thousand lines of code in the LAMP stack. Excellent!

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...0,66022-0.html

"According to a four-year analysis of the 5.7 million lines of Linux source
code conducted by five Stanford University computer science researchers,
the Linux kernel programming code is better and more secure than the
programming code of most proprietary software.

Commercial software typically has 20 to 30 bugs for every 1,000 lines of
code, according to Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Sustainable Computing
Consortium. The study identified 0.17 bugs per 1,000 lines of code in the
Linux kernel."

--------------------

I guess studies by university groups should be more objective than people or
companies counting bugs in their own code.


Peter

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:35:03 +1300, Peter wrote:

> Commercial software typically has 20 to 30 bugs for every 1,000 lines of
> code, according to Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Sustainable
> Computing Consortium. The study identified 0.17 bugs per 1,000 lines of
> code in the Linux kernel."
>
> --------------------
>
> I guess studies by university groups should be more objective than people
> or companies counting bugs in their own code.

Agreed.

I suppose the reason why some people say that the idea of producing bug
free code cannot be done is that they don't aim at producing completely
bug gree code - they only aim at producing "good enough" code.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux,
and it does all the things that they want."

In article <>,
Have A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 06:25:35 +0000, Steven H wrote:
>
>> my BIT third year project had an estimated line count somewhere in the
>> thirty five to forty thousand lines, written in .net 1.1 - and not what i
>> would call a 'complex application'.
>
>Your project had an "estimated" line count? Don't you even know how many
>lines you wrote??

Two possible explanations:

Either:
- he never actually wrote the code, just estimated the number of lines it
would require to do so.

Or:
- he wrote a few hundred lines, and the compiler generated the rest when it
linked in the called objects.

I know very little about .net, but from what I have been told by people who
make a lot of money by knowing it intimately(*), I suspect the latter
explanation is closer to the truth. I haven't looked, but I would bet that
someone has updated the old joke, about how much object code it takes to say
"Hello, World" in various languages, to include the .net executable size.


(*) And bore us all with war stories about it at the pub...

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
-- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286