Talk:List of tools for static code analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning!!! This page was already deleted, because it was a link-spam farm. So to avoid further deletion, you should only link to program which have article already in wikipedia. (see AfD and DRV)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of tools for static code analysis article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Tables 2 Valgrind 3 Categorization 4 VB 5 C++ 6 Company or product page link should not be required 7 History broken ? 8 Old more-complete copy of this page available

[edit] Tables

I've rendered the C# tool in a table format as an example. The columns chosen aren't definitive, if you can think of more relevant ones then please add them. If/when we get it 'right' we could do the same for the other language tools. Have a look at the tables on this page to see where we could go with it.--Hooperbloob 02:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valgrind

valgrind doesn't provide static analysis, does it? You have to actually run the executable. Then it should be removed. --Nephtes 18:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

This entry could use a sub-categorization concerning the cost/license of the various individual solutions, so that people can easily check for tools that match their financial/license requirements

[edit] VB

Several tools in the Visual Basic category don't seem to support Visual Basic, but C# or C++.

[edit] C++

Shouldn't Oink be included, being all popular an' that? barry_abs 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Company or product page link should not be required

This list should include commercial tools for which there is no Wikipedia page. When the list was trimmed to exclude such tools, several significant tools disappeared (GrammaTech, Klocwork, and PolySpace, for example). If this list is to contain commercial tools, the omitted tools should be included because they are as significant as the ones that appear. Requiring the creation of pages that describe the manufactures does not seem useful. Some people would consider the Coverity, LDRA_Testbed, and Programming_Research pages to be spam. Why should having pages like these determine whether a tool is on the list or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.4.89.67 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is NOT a directory! We are not yahoo or other links directories, so we should restrict only to some important or notable programs. For this reason we enforce the rule: A program without an own article is not enough notable for WP. It is a strict rule, but we need such rule. If we don't follow such rules, this page will be deleted (see previous deletion of this page and related un-deletion request), and we think that a page with only internal link is a lot more useful of an inexistent page. If you consider spam the pages above, you could propose for deletion, with spam tag (see WP:AfD for the procedure and for the notability requirement). Cate | _Talk 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History broken ?

Hi there, I would like to retrieve an earlier version of this page (summer 2006), but the history seems to be broken. Could you fix this ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bmerkle (talk • contribs).

The old page was deleted, with the history. If you really need it, you should ask to Wikipedia:Deletion review, section: history only undeletion. Cate | _Talk 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old more-complete copy of this page available

It's regrettable that the history of this page was deleted - it was useful (if you need or want these types of tools), so I've got a copy of it in my user-space as it was at November 2006 at User:Nickj/List of tools for static code analysis. To me it's a quite dubious argument that the new shorter more-incomplete version of the same thing is somehow qualitatively better than the old version was. If there is a consensus objection to me using my user-space in this way, then I'll be happy to move the list off-site. And of course, anyone is welcome to update the list as long as they do constructively. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the list was a useful source of information. Why not create a "External links" subsection and add the list you have at that point. I think the editors were over zealous in removing the existing page. Derek farn 11:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)