| |||||||||||||
GCC and static analysisGCC and static analysisPosted Apr 23, 2012 23:27 UTC (Mon) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)In reply to: GCC and static analysis by sorpigal Parent article: GCC and static analysis
Thanks so much for that link. A delightfully written - as well as interesting - paper.
I particularly liked:
> what distinguishes the three groups in the first test is their different attitudes to meaninglessness.
That sums it all up so beautifully!
(Log in to post comments)
GCC and static analysis Posted Apr 23, 2012 23:30 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
It is a good paper, is there any follow-up work happening? Are the full tests (and scoring info) available anywhere?
GCC and static analysis Posted Apr 24, 2012 10:58 UTC (Tue) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link] Yes, there have been several follow-up papers from the same people on the same subject. I've just skimmed them, but they mostly look like defense against various attempts to deny the results of the first paper. There are additional statistics, though, which are interesting.
GCC and static analysis Posted Apr 26, 2012 13:05 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Quite. I'm not so sure about the division they jokingly draw a few paras further down, though, dividing software practitioners into those who can take the full dose of CS formality and those who are doomed to not enjoy programming, become software engineers, and be drowned in UML. Some of us had trouble with formal CS stuff (certainly at that age) but still enjoy programming very much, thank you (and see UML as the useless pile of notation that it is!).
|
|||||||||||||