5 ms·
It's possible to ship working dynamically-typed code that is just absolutely littered with problems that static-analysis tools complain about (even to the point
by tunesmith 11y ago
It's possible to ship working dynamically-typed code that is just absolutely littered with problems that static-analysis tools complain about (even to the point of being "accidentally correct"). So then you can spend a bunch of hours making it compliant, and it's a big refactor that takes a while for other people to review/qa/approve, meanwhile the product folks are grousing about the time it's taking away from the sprint when it's not a roadmap feature, and as a programmer you might completely believe it's worth the effort to clean up the code, but you're still having to deal with a lot of friction.
- frobozz 11y agoIf you had static analysis in from the start, that wouldn't be a problem. If you add static analysis to a messy project, define success thresholds based on the current violation count, and/or disable violation categories that you can live with. The rule then should be "don't make it worse, try to make it a bit better when you can", rather than "don't commit anything to main until the checker says it's perfect".
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoOur approach was, fix the really horrible ones now, and don't add new ones that we care about. Then, as we have time, fix the next-most-horrible ones.