31–40 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's Russia for you. Yes, it could not happen elsewhere, e.g: https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to... (And from a NYT backed website, nonetheless) > That's ANY shady son of a bitch for you, really. Better.
REALLY disappointed to read this about The Wirecutter.
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.
Yes, these posts are advertisements for PVS-Studio, and since they frequently land on HN, they obviously work for them. Besides, you don't even have to buy PVS-Studio, since the Demo already will show you the complete analyzer output, you just won't be able to directly jump to the source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's Russia for you. Yes, it could not happen elsewhere, e.g: https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to... (And from a NYT backed website, nonetheless) > That's ANY shady son of a bitch for you, really. Better.
REALLY disappointed to read this about The Wirecutter.
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.
You're right, but just a fun edge-case to think about (in JS): NaN === NaN // -> false This check is sometimes used to check if a number is NaN.
Easy to pick on an open source project, suggest changes, but not actually make them on your OWN fork? Clickbait, gross. Similar to linting, where often I need variation in rules, sometimes there's red herrings even in static code analysis. Game software in general can be fly-by-the-wind because it's real-world software ... of course this is all me reacting and trying to argue with the clickbait :/
Yup. Something like :
> You have bugs in your codebase of 1M+ line, you want to fix them ? Buy my proprietary software for 30$/Month per user , which was built 100% on open source tech obviously.
Getting traffic using linting issues from a large codebase to promote a proprietary software , Outrageous.
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.
The details are few and far between, but the possibility or being sued by the vendor would be a bit off putting for me.
Ran static analysis tool author is trying to sell on a 1 million+ line code base for Amazon's open source game engine Lumberyard.
Found warnings. Used it to infer quality of the product and wrote a very click-bait title.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Lint exists since 1979. Everything that is outsourced for an external tool, just happens not to be used by the majority. Clearly the introduction of clang and its sanitizers has changed a bit the mindset, however they are still used by a minority. As per CppCon 2016, 1% of the audience confirmed they were using some kind of validation tool.