This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
Is it just me, or is someone spamming computer pages with: Citations from citeseer and a link that is some generic search for that topic. http://citeseer.org/cs?q=static+and+code+and+analysis This needs to be stopped
I've just added a link to a (static HTML) page which has a list of static code checkers because the old list (which was useful) was pulled.
You are correct. 195.71.53.61 is spamming wikipedia with CiteSeer links.
Hello, my addition to the category "Category:Software_anomalies" and the "see also"-link to the article: Anomaly_in_software were removed on 24th December. Please rethink, because this would be appropriate, see e.g. in the article, I give examples like "data flow anomaly" and "control flow anomaly". Also see in the text for anomalies in general. ----Erkan Yilmaz (evaluate me!, discussion) 11:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this comment is over a decade old without replies. Anomaly_in_software redirects to Software bug now, which is fine. I call this done unless you introduce the topic again and explain what exactly needs to be change, added, etc. Done --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your comment is over a decade old now without replies. I don't see the correlation between SCA and Algo efficiency. If you want this topic, I think there needs to be more than linking. I bet there is research on how static analysis, which leads to better code, does improve software, but does it really improve (efficiency) an algorithm? I have a different understanding of that. SCA doesn't verify the algorithm either, neither does it change or suggest on the nature of the algorithm. I have yet to learn about a SCA tool (and lists, such as MISRA) that have influence on algorithms. SCA has influence on the software of course, and that includes some performance aspects too, but should also be very limited as this is not the main goal of SCA. Thus, I call this comment done so we can step forward. If you have anything on this, please post again with good reasoning and references. Done --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree, there should be a SCA-tool list. This has nothing to do with the individual pages mentioned above. Having a SCA-tool list would make it very clear to the audience and provide an overview as is true for many other lists on Wikipedia. I might start this, but call this comment here done because it is also over a decade old and the mentioning of tools under See also etc. should be improved. Done --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are SCA tools that are used for 'formal verification'. The part "By a straightforward reduction to the [...] still attempt to give useful approximate solutions." should be removed, it has no connection to the other parts and no references. It also looks historical and should be part of the formal main article. The Formal part clearly needs referencing. If you agree I call this comment done. Done --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm being to picky, but if you're going to use the word 'most' in relation to infinite set ('undecidable problems'), don't you need to specify what sort of 'most' your talking about?JustinMH (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
section "Tool types" is not specific to static analysis[edit]
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 --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Static program analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Static program analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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. Metromemo (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done--17387349L8764 (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
