{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014322916666666666, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.152, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Peer reviews in software: a practical guide

Few programmers dispute the premise that having fellow programmers rigorously examine your code is one of the best ways to find defects. However, it is also potentially more dangerous than the traditional testing techniques. Recent revelations in the area of open source software have pointed out a dangerous flaw in the “many eyeballs” strategy of creating programs. The main argument that open source advocates have made is that with so many people examining the code, the likelihood of errors being overlooked is substantially reduced. That argument has been proven false, recent examinations of open source software versus commercial equivalents have shown more errors in the open source product than in the commercial.