> My only quible would be that only code quality static analysis is useful. It didn't occur to me he meant anything else. I just read it as not using -Wall -W

> My only quible would be that only code quality static analysis is useful. It didn't occur to me he meant anything else. I just read it as not using -Wall -Wextra -Werror makes life more painful. > just to get everyone to stfu about variations in code style It makes reading code easier from different programmers easier. But the exact format doesn't matter - just so long it's all similar. Standardising on a formatting tool / linter from the language like pep8 does the stfu job. The bit I was surprised by is: > Code coverage has absolutely nothing to do with code quality It might be true depending now how you measure code quality I guess, but that's a very fuzzy metric. Choose a concrete metric like the ratio of man hours to get code out the door over bugs in that code, and what is absolutely true is automated tests is one of the few dramatic ways we have of forcing the metric up. Either you automate the tests, you spend enormous amounts of time manually doing tests, or you don't test. I suspect he's arguing the difference between 95% and 100% coverage isn't great. I'd quibble, but that's defensible. But the difference between 50% and 95% on the other hand is dramatic.