Why would anyone choose Lumberyard over CryEngine directly? I would think that ones core product will always be better maintained then just some side project that was bought in.
I haven't used either.
Cryengine is notoriously difficult to use. Crytek have also had severe financial difficulties. Amazon have their own team working on the source, I'm not sure how this has worked out but clearly amazon have plenty of resources to throw at it if they choose to.
Why would anyone choose Lumberyard over CryEngine directly? I would think that ones core product will always be better maintained then just some side project that was bought in.
Well, Crytek's financial state isn't the most stable for one. Also Lumberyard's aim is to replace pretty much everything in the long run, some parts of the CryEngine are quite...interesting compared to other engines and the work Amazon has done for example regarding animation and workflow improvements has been great.
Why would anyone choose Lumberyard over CryEngine directly? I would think that ones core product will always be better maintained then just some side project that was bought in.
I believe lumberyard also offers direct integration with AWS.
I work at one of the companies who's product they "reviewed" and many of us got unsolicited emails basically saying, we found all these bugs using our code analyzer. Buy a license from us to fix them or we will post a negative review of your code.
It's a horrible business practice and they do that with many open source products. This behavior shouldn't be praised.
The posts from these guys are pure BLACKMAIL. I work at one of the companies who's product they "reviewed" and many of us got unsolicited emails basically saying, we found all these bugs using our code analyzer. Buy a license from us to fix them or we will post a negative review of your code. It's a horrible business practice and they do that with many open source products. This behavior shouldn't be praised.
One thing that puzzles is me is why some of these checks aren't just part of the warnings that a compiler emits. I get that you wouldn't want to enable them all the time, but usually comparing a variable to itself is not what you want.
gcc and clang have been getting better at this recently. For instance if you do an "x == x" comparison for an int x clang will warn "warning: self-comparison always evaluates to true [-Wtautological-compare]".
I completely agree that having these warnings in the compiler is much better than a standalone analysis tool, because they're less likely to be ignored. But I think it may have been a bit of a shift of mindset for the compiler developers to put more effort into warnings and diagnosing dubious code rather than simply being a code generator for correct code.
One thing that puzzles is me is why some of these checks aren't just part of the warnings that a compiler emits. I get that you wouldn't want to enable them all the time, but usually comparing a variable to itself is not what you want.
gcc and clang have been getting better at this recently. For instance if you do an "x == x" comparison for an int x clang will warn "warning: self-comparison always evaluates to true [-Wtautological-compare]". I completely agree that having these warnings in the compiler is much better than a standalone analysis tool, because they're less likely to be ignored. But I think it may have been a bit of a shift of mindset…
To add on this, clang-tidy is a tool specifically for static code analysis. I don't know if it implements all the checks mentioned in the article, but it is quite powerful, being able to detect eg. array overruns through several layers of function calls and ifs.
The posts from these guys are pure BLACKMAIL. I work at one of the companies who's product they "reviewed" and many of us got unsolicited emails basically saying, we found all these bugs using our code analyzer. Buy a license from us to fix them or we will post a negative review of your code. It's a horrible business practice and they do that with many open source products. This behavior shouldn't be praised.
Just tell them you'll use sonarqube[0] from now on. I mean, what is the point of using proprietary software when the opensource alternative is better?
The posts from these guys are pure BLACKMAIL. I work at one of the companies who's product they "reviewed" and many of us got unsolicited emails basically saying, we found all these bugs using our code analyzer. Buy a license from us to fix them or we will post a negative review of your code. It's a horrible business practice and they do that with many open source products. This behavior shouldn't be praised.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if calling it blackmail is hyperbole.
If it really is blackmail, have you contacted a law-enforcement agency?
The posts from these guys are pure BLACKMAIL. I work at one of the companies who's product they "reviewed" and many of us got unsolicited emails basically saying, we found all these bugs using our code analyzer. Buy a license from us to fix them or we will post a negative review of your code. It's a horrible business practice and they do that with many open source products. This behavior shouldn't be praised.
You are saying you and your company do not want to fix your buggy code but at the same time you do not want your customers/users to know that your product contains buggy code. Interesting.