21–30 of 130 posts
no button in the IDE :)
Have you used one of the popular IDEs recently (Visual Studio, Xcode etc)? It's built into most these days. Everybody I know who actually uses static analysis does so because it's built into their IDE and very easy to use.
Because neither an advanced type system nor static analysis could catch bugs in program logic?) The benefits of static typing (complie-time checks) are grossly exaggerated. If the claims were true, Java itself and Java projects would be much less buggy.)
Alice: "Doing X will prevent bugs like Y!"
Bob: "Oh, but it does nothing for bugs like Z. I just won't bother at all, then".
Why would you not want to try and remove an entire class of bugs if it were within your power to do so? Just look at all the effort companies like Facebook have poured into exactly this kind of problem with things like Hack and Flow (which make use of OCaml).
Because neither an advanced type system nor static analysis could catch bugs in program logic?) The benefits of static typing (complie-time checks) are grossly exaggerated. If the claims were true, Java itself and Java projects would be much less buggy.)
EDIT: Additionally, given the changes in C++11 we should be able to push all the work onto the compiler for checking type problems, remove dangerous operations, dangling pointers, naked new/delete and avoid casting where possible. It would make for bug-free software. I know someone who writes their C++ like it is late 80s C and firstly, it's horrible to read. And secondly, it does really dangerous things.
Because neither an advanced type system nor static analysis could catch bugs in program logic?) The benefits of static typing (complie-time checks) are grossly exaggerated. If the claims were true, Java itself and Java projects would be much less buggy.)
To me, simple static analysis can be over sold to the point that it is worthless. I swear, I see more effort put into detecting tabs versus spaces than I do things that actually reliably cause bugs. Seriously, unless you are writing make files, I just can't bring myself to care on tabs.
However, using some of the more advanced static analysis tools that don't just show where you forgot to do a null check, but also show where you pass in a null value... That is truly impressive and fixes bugs. Even better, these are things that can be used to harden a code base without having to rewrite it.
I can often determine whether someone had used Eclipse or IntelliJ; there tend to be a lot fewer analysis warnings if someone has used IntelliJ (out of the box) => perhaps we need this analysis in real time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Xcode at least there's a 'Build & Analyze" command (cmd-shift-b). What I like to do is to force a deep analyze on every build. Takes a little longer to build but at least I catch some bugs when I introduce them.
My compile is already 10 minutes, I don't want to add a static analysis pass to every build thanks.
Do you not parallel build?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Xcode at least there's a 'Build & Analyze" command (cmd-shift-b). What I like to do is to force a deep analyze on every build. Takes a little longer to build but at least I catch some bugs when I introduce them.
My compile is already 10 minutes, I don't want to add a static analysis pass to every build thanks.
1) PVS-Studio can instead be set to run in background immediately after the edited code has been successfully compiled.
2) PVS-Studio integrates with IncrediBuild. And soon we will publish an article about it. A little spoiler. :)