What Russ Cox thinks about software quality

@russ-cox · 7 positions · On ppll ↗

Software engineer and a long-time technical lead of the Go programming language; author of plan9port and of the research.swtch.com essays.

Russ Cox did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

Filter software quality · Newest first

Topic

All 7open source 2software quality 2cybersecurity 1developer tools 1documentation 1simplicity 1writing 1

Sort

NewestOldest

Only Russ Cox on software quality. See everyone on software quality

2 dated positions, 2025, in their own words. Our reading of what Russ Cox has said — not written or endorsed by them.

2 positions so far — this page is not yet offered to search engines.

1. 25 Apr 2025

   Our readingComparing code coverage between passing and failing test runs is a cheap, effective way to localize a bug quickly.

   Their wordsDifferential coverage is cheap to compute and display, and when it's right, it can save a lot of time.

   ↗Differential Coverage for Debuggingresearch.swtch.com 1st of 2 in this piece

3. 25 Apr 2025

   Our readingBuggy code usually causes outright test failures rather than being silently exercised inside tests that still pass.

   Their wordsa passing test can still execute buggy code if the bug is data-dependent, or if the test is not sensitive to the specific mistake in the code. But a lot of the time, buggy code only triggers failures.

   ↗Differential Coverage for Debuggingresearch.swtch.com 2nd of 2 in this piece