Mailinglist Archive: yast-devel (31 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [yast-devel] Again: 98% of "undefined method" errors have nothing to do with static typing
  • From: Josef Reidinger <jreidinger@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:35:37 +0100
  • Message-id: <20171213103537.7767096b@linux-vvcf.privatesite>
V Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:31:32 +0100
Arvin Schnell <aschnell@xxxxxxxx> 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 <aschnell@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >