Re: [yast-devel] Again: 98% of "undefined method" errors have nothing to do with static typing

V Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:31:32 +0100 Arvin Schnell napsáno:

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:14:42AM +0100, Josef Reidinger wrote:

...

V Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:47:13 +0100 Arvin Schnell napsáno:

...

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:18:16AM +0100, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:

...

This is probably the less useful mail ever, since it just goes over a topic that has been explained over and over and still pops us in almost every single meeting.

Let me say it again: 98% of the "undefined method `xxx' for nil:NilClass" errors are NOT related AT ALL to Ruby being dynamically typed and would NOT be prevented by the usage of a statically typed language.

I think you are mixing static typing and static code analysis.

ciao Arvin

Well, it is a bit related as static code analysis strength is related to rigidness of language. And actually even c++ have quite weak static code analysis.

Not only the compiler can do static code analysis. Other tools do much more, e.g. coverity.

ciao Arvin

How does coverity or other handle pointers in C++? I think it is similar kind of issue as ruby have for static analysis. Any pointer can be NULL or invalid address and similar in ruby anything can be nil. I know that mvidner trying rubylint and it was quite tricky. So if coverity can deal with such issue, we can check how it is done and can check is someone try similar approach for ruby and it can really helps us. Thanks Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org