> You should think of static analysis as a form of linting. It's there to catch stupid errors and brainfarts that should not need to even reach a reviewer. I a

> You should think of static analysis as a form of linting. It's there to catch stupid errors and brainfarts that should not need to even reach a reviewer. I actually agree. But the implication is that static analysis should really live in the IDE, not the compiler or test suite. It's best when catching the silly whoopsy bugs as you're typing them. But I've yet to see a static analyzer that can catch race conditions, network or I/O errors, or something that can verify what you expect to happen actually does happen. Thinking about static analysis on a higher level, arguably they shouldn't be necessary at all. If a system can statically analyze your code and find faults, then it implies that there is a deficiency in the language itself.