Linter?
-
Just curious, how many of you have heard of & used Linter? [What Is a Linter? Here's a Definition and Quick-Start Guide](https://www.testim.io/blog/what-is-a-linter-heres-a-definition-and-quick-start-guide/)
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
I am surprised that anyone has not heard of a linter ... I grew up with compilers who did those kinds of things. Compilers not allowing just any kind of dirt, because 'you asked for it, you got it'. When C came on the scene, my generation quickly made shell macros to always run lint before running the compiler, to get something resembling what they were used to with the compilers of the old days. In my last job, we tightened some of the Lint rules, redefining a few warnings as errors, and required the build job to be aborted if lint reported an error. The logging system reported the number of (non-fatal) lint warnings for each build to a statistics module, to monitor the development of code quality. We gradually changed to Python, and although there is a sort of Python-lint, it never was mandated. The programmers were happy: They were no longer bugged by these nasty remarks of bad code quality. Sadly, I am not surprised that far too many of my workmates will call such development "progress".
-
Just curious, how many of you have heard of & used Linter? [What Is a Linter? Here's a Definition and Quick-Start Guide](https://www.testim.io/blog/what-is-a-linter-heres-a-definition-and-quick-start-guide/)
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
Been using linters for years. Peeps shouldn't be doing development without them.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Just curious, how many of you have heard of & used Linter? [What Is a Linter? Here's a Definition and Quick-Start Guide](https://www.testim.io/blog/what-is-a-linter-heres-a-definition-and-quick-start-guide/)
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
Static analysis tools do not provide any value in modern programming. When they were first invented compilers had almost zero effective error reporting so using a second tool with pattern matching to find those before compilation seemed like a good idea. The authors or companies pushing them often claim benefits that do not exist. Bugs in software which are actually significant, where significant means costing time (and thus money) to fix come from logic errors and system errors which static analysis tools cannot identify by their very nature. Adherence to static analyzers can actually end up creating code that is not as easy to maintain and even end up introducing bugs. This happens when developers just try anything to get it to pass. The argument proponents make about that problem is that developers should be more diligent. But of course the same argument applies to why one might claim that a static analyzer is a good idea in the first place. Why are those very same diligent developers being nit-picked in the first place?
-
Static analysis tools do not provide any value in modern programming. When they were first invented compilers had almost zero effective error reporting so using a second tool with pattern matching to find those before compilation seemed like a good idea. The authors or companies pushing them often claim benefits that do not exist. Bugs in software which are actually significant, where significant means costing time (and thus money) to fix come from logic errors and system errors which static analysis tools cannot identify by their very nature. Adherence to static analyzers can actually end up creating code that is not as easy to maintain and even end up introducing bugs. This happens when developers just try anything to get it to pass. The argument proponents make about that problem is that developers should be more diligent. But of course the same argument applies to why one might claim that a static analyzer is a good idea in the first place. Why are those very same diligent developers being nit-picked in the first place?
From what I can see, all we're using it for is ensuring code formatting is correct. So now I have to go back and remove extra lines, or empty spaces at the end of line, etc. Seems like a real time waster to me
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
-
I developed at C++ static analysis tool[^] that I regularly use on my code.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
From what I can see, all we're using it for is ensuring code formatting is correct. So now I have to go back and remove extra lines, or empty spaces at the end of line, etc. Seems like a real time waster to me
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
Could be, but those kind of things can point to sloppiness that is more problematic.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
Static analysis tools do not provide any value in modern programming. When they were first invented compilers had almost zero effective error reporting so using a second tool with pattern matching to find those before compilation seemed like a good idea. The authors or companies pushing them often claim benefits that do not exist. Bugs in software which are actually significant, where significant means costing time (and thus money) to fix come from logic errors and system errors which static analysis tools cannot identify by their very nature. Adherence to static analyzers can actually end up creating code that is not as easy to maintain and even end up introducing bugs. This happens when developers just try anything to get it to pass. The argument proponents make about that problem is that developers should be more diligent. But of course the same argument applies to why one might claim that a static analyzer is a good idea in the first place. Why are those very same diligent developers being nit-picked in the first place?
That is quite an opinionated answer. Responding to it would almost certainly create a flame war. @GregUtas has made a static analyzer and described it in an article. Maybe, if you have a different opinion, you can write an article explaining your point of view. That way we would all be able to evaluate its merits. Simple, definitive statements like "Static analysis tools do not provide any value in modern programming." remind me of the famous H. L. Meknken quote: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Mircea
-
Just curious, how many of you have heard of & used Linter? [What Is a Linter? Here's a Definition and Quick-Start Guide](https://www.testim.io/blog/what-is-a-linter-heres-a-definition-and-quick-start-guide/)
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
😶all my software without already has a bunch of warnings about async no await, and none reachable code, why would I want to add to that list and then c#10 is used, and gives more warnings about shortening and rewriting things to be even more compressed then before ......I think I might fix some of these warnings first then add linter 😞
-
Just curious, how many of you have heard of & used Linter? [What Is a Linter? Here's a Definition and Quick-Start Guide](https://www.testim.io/blog/what-is-a-linter-heres-a-definition-and-quick-start-guide/)
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
in my opinion, it's one of the greatest ideas. in the spirit of non-standardized C, from the original K&R book: "For those situations where strong type checking is desirable, a separate version of the compiler is used. This program is called lint, apparently because it picks bits of fluff from one's programs. lint does not generate code, but instead applies a very strict check to as many aspects of a program as can be verified at compile and load time. It detects type mismatches, inconsistent argument usage, used or apparently uninitialized variables, potential portability issues, and the like." this is the ultimate separation of concern. you can have original C type checking: "Existing compilers provide no run-time checking of array subscripts, argument types, etc." or you can have strong type checking (as strong as it gets), but it's up to you. more in a hippie manner, than in a ____ wing political manner, telling you what is good (therefore allowed) and what is evil (therefore forbidden). cheers
-
Just curious, how many of you have heard of & used Linter? [What Is a Linter? Here's a Definition and Quick-Start Guide](https://www.testim.io/blog/what-is-a-linter-heres-a-definition-and-quick-start-guide/)
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
Yes, I use a linter in some circumstances, usually just to provide a quick check on my code. I don’t assume I know and write everything correctly, so I’ll employ a tool to give it a ‘once over’ before testing or committing. I don’t always agree with the alerts/suggestions, but it makes me aware so I can make a conscious decision about it. I also use Jet Brain’s ReSharper when using the Visual Studio IDE, as it does real-time code evaluation (when I don’t agree with a rule, I just modify the configuration) Whether to use a linter or other code-analysis tool seems more like a personal preference: keep it in your toolbox, know how to use it, and use it when you want.
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events. - Manly P. Hall Mark Just another cog in the wheel
-
Static analysis tools do not provide any value in modern programming. When they were first invented compilers had almost zero effective error reporting so using a second tool with pattern matching to find those before compilation seemed like a good idea. The authors or companies pushing them often claim benefits that do not exist. Bugs in software which are actually significant, where significant means costing time (and thus money) to fix come from logic errors and system errors which static analysis tools cannot identify by their very nature. Adherence to static analyzers can actually end up creating code that is not as easy to maintain and even end up introducing bugs. This happens when developers just try anything to get it to pass. The argument proponents make about that problem is that developers should be more diligent. But of course the same argument applies to why one might claim that a static analyzer is a good idea in the first place. Why are those very same diligent developers being nit-picked in the first place?
jschell wrote:
Static analysis tools do not provide any value in modern programming. When they were first invented compilers had almost zero effective error reporting so using a second tool with pattern matching to find those before compilation seemed like a good idea.
Strongly disagree. I've learned a ton about the quirks of a language, etc. just by using them. Here's an example in JavaScript, always explicitly setting the radix for
parseInt. A static analyzer will tell you why you should do that.Jeremy Falcon
-
Static analysis tools do not provide any value in modern programming. When they were first invented compilers had almost zero effective error reporting so using a second tool with pattern matching to find those before compilation seemed like a good idea. The authors or companies pushing them often claim benefits that do not exist. Bugs in software which are actually significant, where significant means costing time (and thus money) to fix come from logic errors and system errors which static analysis tools cannot identify by their very nature. Adherence to static analyzers can actually end up creating code that is not as easy to maintain and even end up introducing bugs. This happens when developers just try anything to get it to pass. The argument proponents make about that problem is that developers should be more diligent. But of course the same argument applies to why one might claim that a static analyzer is a good idea in the first place. Why are those very same diligent developers being nit-picked in the first place?
i agree. using a linter for suggestions is great, being bound to its 'rules' isn't. code reviews would be better, some type of paired programming would be better. If the code compiles, then a linter may interfere with the writer's intentions. If the code compiles and it wasn't the writer's intention, then having a second eye is better than a linter. AND if someone is writing code that requires linting I would think that person shouldn't be writing code. I've never been happy with linters; they force you to write code according to someone else's style. If we're just using linters to 'teach' people how to write code then that person probably shouldn't be writing code. like the quote from Ratatouille cartoon, "Anybody one can cook, but not anyone should cook"
-
Just curious, how many of you have heard of & used Linter? [What Is a Linter? Here's a Definition and Quick-Start Guide](https://www.testim.io/blog/what-is-a-linter-heres-a-definition-and-quick-start-guide/)
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
We use linters&static code analysis for C++, Go and Python. I love them all. For all three they increase readability. For C++ they even catch potential bugs, such as memory leaks. For C++ we also have
clang-formatto remove hand editing."If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
-
Just curious, how many of you have heard of & used Linter? [What Is a Linter? Here's a Definition and Quick-Start Guide](https://www.testim.io/blog/what-is-a-linter-heres-a-definition-and-quick-start-guide/)
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
I use plpgsql_check which is a linter for PostgreSQL. It's been amazingly helpful in reviewing code for mistakes and other warnings (like applying a conversion to an indexed column, as opposed to the other variable! The former (it tells you) will prevent the index from being used!) NICE! Of course, working with converted code... I was not thrilled with the first 35,000 errors, warnings and hints! LOL But after clearing them, I feel MUCH better about the converted code!
-
From what I can see, all we're using it for is ensuring code formatting is correct. So now I have to go back and remove extra lines, or empty spaces at the end of line, etc. Seems like a real time waster to me
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
Most of the open source projects I've contributed to have a code formatting script that will do that part for you.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
jschell wrote:
Static analysis tools do not provide any value in modern programming. When they were first invented compilers had almost zero effective error reporting so using a second tool with pattern matching to find those before compilation seemed like a good idea.
Strongly disagree. I've learned a ton about the quirks of a language, etc. just by using them. Here's an example in JavaScript, always explicitly setting the radix for
parseInt. A static analyzer will tell you why you should do that.Jeremy Falcon
Okay wait a minute. @jschell was clearly talking about compiled (and implied strongly typed) languages in their post. I can think of a ton of reasons why someone would want to lint JS code, or for that matter any duck typed code, but even moreso JS with it's sort of haphazard evolution from ECMAScript and the syntax weirdities that brings. None of them really apply to C and C++, unless you stretch. Modern compilers are really good at teasing out potential problems in your code that would otherwise be caught by static analysis tools. That doesn't really apply to JS. So this is apples and oranges.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Okay wait a minute. @jschell was clearly talking about compiled (and implied strongly typed) languages in their post. I can think of a ton of reasons why someone would want to lint JS code, or for that matter any duck typed code, but even moreso JS with it's sort of haphazard evolution from ECMAScript and the syntax weirdities that brings. None of them really apply to C and C++, unless you stretch. Modern compilers are really good at teasing out potential problems in your code that would otherwise be caught by static analysis tools. That doesn't really apply to JS. So this is apples and oranges.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Don’t be that person. I could give static analysis examples too, but I’m at a point in my life where I refuse to entertain these types of posts. Thanks for reminding me why I don’t visit this place.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Don’t be that person. I could give static analysis examples too, but I’m at a point in my life where I refuse to entertain these types of posts. Thanks for reminding me why I don’t visit this place.
Jeremy Falcon
Don't be what person? The person that dared disagree with you and politely said so? Gosh, maybe you really *shouldn't* visit this place.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Don't be what person? The person that dared disagree with you and politely said so? Gosh, maybe you really *shouldn't* visit this place.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
You are not polite.
Jeremy Falcon
-
You are not polite.
Jeremy Falcon
Excuse me? You came in here being like "don't be that guy" and then basically "you're the reason I don't post here" after I simply disagreed with you. Right after you got done disagreeing with the original poster. Physician, heal thyself.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
