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.

中文翻译：

---

流行编程语言中的错误解决特性研究

本文提出了一项大规模研究，该研究调查了用不同编程语言编写的流行 Github 项目之间的错误解决特征。我们探索相关性，但当然，我们无法推断因果关系。具体来说，我们分析了大约 7000 万条源代码行的错误解决数据，这些数据来自 600 个 GitHub 项目的 300 万次提交，主要用 10 种编程语言编写。我们发现明显的错误解决时间和补丁（修复）大小的显着变化。虽然解释此类大规模实证研究的结果本身就很困难，但我们认为中位数的差异足够大，需要进一步调查、复制、重新分析和后续研究。例如，在我们的语料库中，Ruby 的中位明显错误解决时间（从提出到解决所用的时间）是 Go 的 4 倍和 Java 的 2.5 倍。我们还发现补丁倾向于接触更多的强类型和静态类型程序语料库文件。但是，我们还发现了证据表明，对于由静态类型语言构建的项目进行的错误解决所用的解决时间较短。这些发现，如果在随后的后续研究中得到复制，可能会为关于静态类型重要性的辩论提供进一步的经验启示。我们还发现有证据表明，对于从静态类型语言构建的项目进行的错误解决，所用的解决时间较短。这些发现，如果在随后的后续研究中得到复制，可能会为关于静态类型重要性的辩论提供进一步的经验启示。我们还发现有证据表明，对于从静态类型语言构建的项目进行的错误解决，所用的解决时间较短。这些发现，如果在随后的后续研究中得到复制，可能会为关于静态类型重要性的辩论提供进一步的经验启示。