The summary is over-hyping this story, which is a day or two old, and not given anything like this much play in the mainstream media. The link to Forbes is actually just to a third-party renting space on the Forbes site, and the New Republic piece is opinion, not news coverage. Not that I am in any way denying or condoning Putin’s invasion, but overreacting doesn’t help.
You can (and should) use the LLVM/Clang static analyzer regardless of whether you compile with LLVM, GCC, or the hybrid of the two. During development, it’s sometimes worth experimenting with the compiler you’re not using, e.g. if you’re struggling with an error message. I’ve generally found LLVM’s diagnostics more useful, but sometimes a second opinion can be helpful, and Googling a GCC error message generally gets more hits.
My day job is using Prevent, so I'm obviously biased, but it does catch a lot of important bugs when used properly--which does take some work. Among other things, you should probably adjust the set of checkers it runs, disabling some of the default ones, and enabling a lot of the non-default ones. (If you're already a customer, Coverity's forum has a discussion thread about this; I'd urge you to contribute your experiences.) It's good about letting you mark false positives, as well as the far more common false don't-cares, so that you only see them once--and marking a bunch of false positives is a lot faster than finding its bugs would be without static analysis. Prevent's defect manager has an option to compare successive runs of the tool, which I've found useful for tracking bugs which have been fixed by developers _not_ using the tool. If a developer fixed some bugs independently, that's independent validation of the value of those bugs. A previous poster complained about using its metrics, and I think I disagree, though we're not using it that way. It does look to me like the areas where it has the highest defect density (even allowing for false positives) are the areas of our code which need the most attention. The usual disclaimers apply: You can only use metrics as a tool for making judgments, not a replacement, and you've got to avoid the usual "Whatever we can measure easily is all that matters" fallacy.
Apparently even exclusionists need to check the Notability criteria:-) This is being discussed here because it was covered in The Economist, and if that's not "the high-quality end of the market" [Wikipedia:RS], I'd like to know what is. The Economist's article [The Economist, 8 March 2008, "Technology Quarterly" p. 3] itself does not, of course, "report... as if it's a new thing." But you didn't cite your sources, so it's not clear what you meant, or if you read the article before objecting.
Good point, though it would have to be smart about handling links posted by inclusionists, with not merely a "not found" but a "Would you like to change your option?" message
>> Based on the difficulties Wikipedia has had to raise money lately, I'd say most people don't like their stand.
Yes, I've stopped my support (both financial and monitoring of my watchlist) because of this. Not just fictional entities; I've had to defend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis twice against exclusionists, who were demonstrably ignoring Wikipedia's own rules in their quest for notability.
The main point is, again, that the release hasn't been made. (If you don't like arguments from authority, try to find a 4.1 release on one of the mirrors.) I agree that the Slashdot headline is misleading (that's why I know that the mirrors don't have it...)
I'm afraid the moral of this tragedy is that some, at least, of the spammers make money, and Charles Booher loses. It's too late to do anything about the former, but perhaps Blue Security can do something about the latter.
I've found only three acceptable ways to read electronic literature: (1) The late, lamented Newton. (2) A high-resolution Palm screen with PalmReader Pro (now eReader) and the Bell 18-point serif font. Some, but not all, of their commercial books do paragraphing correctly (i.e., \n\t, not \n\n); almost all the non-commercial ebooks I've found get this uniformly wrong: A decade of low-resolution screens is no excuse for ignoring a millennium of reading tradition. (3) Safari on an LCD screen with a custom style sheet, rendering
> I had loads of trouble with version 5. Hangs, freezes, and everything.
I'm having them too with VPC 6 and XP Pro on OSX 10.2.4/G4Dp, as are a number of people in the Connectix support forum. Frequently even the Mac's menubar clock freezes for several seconds, something I've never seen before. On the other hand, given the lack of outrage here, perhaps I'm in the minority.
Slashdot Mirror
Real Quicken.
The summary is over-hyping this story, which is a day or two old, and not given anything like this much play in the mainstream media. The link to Forbes is actually just to a third-party renting space on the Forbes site, and the New Republic piece is opinion, not news coverage. Not that I am in any way denying or condoning Putin’s invasion, but overreacting doesn’t help.
You can (and should) use the LLVM/Clang static analyzer regardless of whether you compile with LLVM, GCC, or the hybrid of the two. During development, it’s sometimes worth experimenting with the compiler you’re not using, e.g. if you’re struggling with an error message. I’ve generally found LLVM’s diagnostics more useful, but sometimes a second opinion can be helpful, and Googling a GCC error message generally gets more hits.
My day job is using Prevent, so I'm obviously biased, but it does catch a lot of important bugs when used properly--which does take some work. Among other things, you should probably adjust the set of checkers it runs, disabling some of the default ones, and enabling a lot of the non-default ones. (If you're already a customer, Coverity's forum has a discussion thread about this; I'd urge you to contribute your experiences.) It's good about letting you mark false positives, as well as the far more common false don't-cares, so that you only see them once--and marking a bunch of false positives is a lot faster than finding its bugs would be without static analysis.
Prevent's defect manager has an option to compare successive runs of the tool, which I've found useful for tracking bugs which have been fixed by developers _not_ using the tool. If a developer fixed some bugs independently, that's independent validation of the value of those bugs.
A previous poster complained about using its metrics, and I think I disagree, though we're not using it that way. It does look to me like the areas where it has the highest defect density (even allowing for false positives) are the areas of our code which need the most attention. The usual disclaimers apply: You can only use metrics as a tool for making judgments, not a replacement, and you've got to avoid the usual "Whatever we can measure easily is all that matters" fallacy.
Apparently even exclusionists need to check the Notability criteria :-) This is being discussed here because it was covered in The Economist, and if that's not "the high-quality end of the market" [Wikipedia:RS], I'd like to know what is. The Economist's article [The Economist, 8 March 2008, "Technology Quarterly" p. 3] itself does not, of course, "report... as if it's a new thing." But you didn't cite your sources, so it's not clear what you meant, or if you read the article before objecting.
> use a classification system on the articles
Good point, though it would have to be smart about handling links posted by inclusionists, with not merely a "not found" but a "Would you like to change your option?" message
>> Based on the difficulties Wikipedia has had to raise money lately, I'd say most people don't like their stand.
Yes, I've stopped my support (both financial and monitoring of my watchlist) because of this. Not just fictional entities; I've had to defend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis twice against exclusionists, who were demonstrably ignoring Wikipedia's own rules in their quest for notability.
The main point is, again, that the release hasn't been made. (If you don't like arguments from authority, try to find a 4.1 release on one of the mirrors.) I agree that the Slashdot headline is misleading (that's why I know that the mirrors don't have it...)
I'm afraid the moral of this tragedy is that some, at least, of the spammers make money, and Charles Booher loses. It's too late to do anything about the former, but perhaps Blue Security can do something about the latter.
(1) The late, lamented Newton.
(2) A high-resolution Palm screen with PalmReader Pro (now eReader) and the Bell 18-point serif font. Some, but not all, of their commercial books do paragraphing correctly (i.e., \n\t, not \n\n); almost all the non-commercial ebooks I've found get this uniformly wrong: A decade of low-resolution screens is no excuse for ignoring a millennium of reading tradition.
(3) Safari on an LCD screen with a custom style sheet, rendering
as \n\t:
P {text-indent: 1em; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0;
padding-bottom: 0; padding-top: 0; }
---
Disclaimer: There are various complicated relations between some of my employers and the companies mentioned above.
Copying a Radio URL from the Info dialog is also broken in the past few versions.
> I had loads of trouble with version 5. Hangs, freezes, and everything.
I'm having them too with VPC 6 and XP Pro on OSX 10.2.4/G4Dp, as are a number of people in the Connectix support forum. Frequently even the Mac's menubar clock freezes for several seconds, something I've never seen before. On the other hand, given the lack of outrage here, perhaps I'm in the minority.