Re: [SystemSafety] systemsafety Digest, Vol 34, Issue 5

From: Derek M Jones < >
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 02:38:56 +0100


All,

On 04/05/2015 20:04, Roderick Chapman wrote:
> Derek's experience of strong static analysis may be based on
> retrospective analysis of badly written or unsubsetted C or C++,

Many non-cosmetic/style language sub-setting rules have their roots in the resource limitations of the static analysis tools of years gone by.

What will happen now that cloud computing has removed the economic bottleneck for access to large scale computing resources (at least until somebody comes up with a new technique requiring more than a terrabyte of memory)?

There has always been a lot of push-back from developers over rules that make their life difficult.

In some quarters the original reasons (static analysis limitations) for some rules has probably been forgotten and the rules will stay in place because that is how things have always been done (a bit like the wisdom of the ancients in mystic circles).

Slowly but surely everybody else will realise that the rules are not needed any more; the required code analysis can really be done at reasonable cost.

-- 
Derek M. Jones           Software analysis
tel: +44 (0)1252 520667  blog:shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com
_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
Received on Tue May 05 2015 - 03:39:33 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Apr 21 2019 - 00:17:07 CEST