3 ms·
The article is about static analysis. Static analysis is the most efficient way to catch a whole host of bugs. Testing would be a waste of everyone's time for t
by glibgil 12y ago
The article is about static analysis. Static analysis is the most efficient way to catch a whole host of bugs. Testing would be a waste of everyone's time for these types of bugs. Now, the tools in the article are commercial and perform static analysis on C and C++. Other programming languages have static analysis and code path coverage analysis built into their compilers. Many of those languages are free. Writing tests to cover those types of bugs is time wasted on a problem that is already solved.
- DanielBMarkham 12y agoI completely agree. I won't change my initial comment, but please be aware that by "testing" I also meant static code analysis. (Thought had it covered with software, hardware, and infrastructure, but forgot one)
- pjmlp 12y agoFunny enough in a sad way, static analysis tooling was part of the original C tooling, but when developers started creating C compilers for systems other than UNIX, lint seldom came along. It also did not help the way C compiler phases were split. If anything, we have to thank LLVM guys for making static analysis part of clang.