  Machine Learning models from other fields, like Computational Linguistics,
have been transplanted to Software Engineering tasks, often quite successfully.
Yet a transplanted model's initial success at a given task does not necessarily
mean it is well-suited for the task. In this work, we examine a common example
of this phenomenon: the conceit that "software patching is like language
translation". We demonstrate empirically that there are subtle, but critical
distinctions between sequence-to-sequence models and translation model: while
program repair benefits greatly from the former, general modeling architecture,
it actually suffers from design decisions built into the latter, both in terms
of translation accuracy and diversity. Given these findings, we demonstrate how
a more principled approach to model design, based on our empirical findings and
general knowledge of software development, can lead to better solutions. Our
findings also lend strong support to the recent trend towards synthesizing
edits of code conditional on the buggy context, to repair bugs. We implement
such models ourselves as "proof-of-concept" tools and empirically confirm that
they behave in a fundamentally different, more effective way than the studied
translation-based architectures. Overall, our results demonstrate the merit of
studying the intricacies of machine learned models in software engineering: not
only can this help elucidate potential issues that may be overshadowed by
increases in accuracy; it can also help innovate on these models to raise the
state-of-the-art further. We will publicly release our replication data and
materials at https://github.com/ARiSE-Lab/Patch-as-translation.
