Talk:Static program analysis: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:16, 6 April 2021

Latest revision as of 18:17, 3 February 2024

(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|class=C|auto=inherit|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject ComputerComputing science|importanceauto=mid |classimportance=Cmid}}

{{WikiProject Computer science |importance=mid }}

}}

==linkspam==

Line 34 ⟶ 36:

= Related Links =

* http://ddj.com/cpp/206104422 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Parallelized|Parallelized]] ([[User talk:Parallelized|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Parallelized|contribs]]) 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*:Hi, nice link, but DDJ is nearly dead now. The link works, but sub-sequent pages 2,3,4 don't: "Oops, something has gone wrong. Please contact administrator." If the link was added as references in the main article, maybe Ok (should be re-worked with better sources, e.g. IEEE, Elsevier, etc.) but for now this comment can be called done (it's also over a decade in space). {{done}} --[[User:17387349L8764|17387349L8764]] ([[User talk:17387349L8764|talk]]) 08:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

== section "Tool types" is not specific to static analysis ==

This section and the cited paper are not specific to static analysis so should either be moved to "program analysis" or removed.

[[Special:Contributions/218.212.205.1|218.212.205.1]] ([[User talk:218.212.205.1|talk]]) 05:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

:Agree, the whole section needs re-work. Sentences like "This document on "How to Deliver Resilient, Secure, Efficient, and Easily Changed IT Systems in Line with CISQ Recommendations" describes three levels of software analysis." are not ideal. If a document is used, it should be linked and and doesn't need explicit mentioning. CISQ comes from a Quality-type angle. The mentioned "levels" are very similar to a "V-model", but basically I have not seen a SCA-tool or method that works on the integration side of things. SCA at the core of things is on the module/unit level, checking the blank code if you want. A fraction of tools can do dependencies. I think this section needs re-working to put it into correct context. I might do it, but I would call this comment done if you don't mind. Yes agree, program analysis is the right home for this and program analysis article seems very poor under-developed too in terms of references. {{done}} --[[User:17387349L8764|17387349L8764]] ([[User talk:17387349L8764|talk]]) 08:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Line 69 ⟶ 74:

There are studies referenced in the Rationale section from 2012 and 2010. I'm sure these were added when those studies were released, but it seems pretty outdated for this article now (and irrelevant at this point?). Should these be removed altogether? Reworded? Would love to hear others' input. [[User:Metromemo|Metromemo]] ([[User talk:Metromemo|talk]]) 20:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

:On a deeper look, this entire article could use some updating. The most recent reference is from 2015 and most are older than that. [[User:Metromemo|Metromemo]] ([[User talk:Metromemo|talk]]) 20:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

::Complete article needs updating. Old references are usually Ok if they are major papers. Some papers are just "leaps", but of course there are newer documents on SCA meanwhile looking across IEEE, Elsevier, etc. sources. --[[User:17387349L8764|17387349L8764]] ([[User talk:17387349L8764|talk]]) 08:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)