Integrating findbugs into javac is good because javac currently does a
half-arsed job. It warns on some strange situations, produces stupid
errors on others ('unreachable code', which has 'this should have
been a warning' written all over it!), catches certain code mistakes
but doesn't catch similar code mistakes elsewhere. It's a mess. The
notion that java is statically typed is often claimed to be good for
finding bugs at compile time.Live the story. Make that happen. What are the downsides of integrating findbugs into javac, especially if it is done in a way that you can easily replace findbugs or upgrade that part of it separately? I don't think we're on the same line on tool usage. I'm talking about using an IDE that helps you with auto-complete and is capable of rendering texts a certain way (which opens the door to eliminating arguments of 'but that'll be very confusing' with: Okay, so we mandate that certain usages get rendered differently from other usages which look the same in plain ascii, but do something entirely different, hence lowering the confusion. That kind of argument doesn't really fly today. Or, findbugs. Or, taking for granted that any java user can call up a full object graph. Or, taking for granted that a new module system will force people to properly sort out dependencies, but not caring too much about that because the notion that any java programmer uses tools is accepted. (in this case, a tool that analyses a set of modules and makes suggestions about making them work together) It has absolutely nothing to do with logging? On Feb 26, 3:42 am, robilad <dalibor.to...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 5:58 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > need to start advocating the mandatory use of such tools, work on > > getting findbugs integrated into javac, > > A. Why would you want to integrate findbugs into javac? > > B. Mandatory use of tools wouldn't work too well. Yes, you can make > tools that tell developers that they aren't perfect, euphemistically > speaking, but if they are sufficiently capable with any programming > language, they'll find a way to work around the litany of the > mandatory > tools, for example by logging it to /dev/null .. ;) > > In a galaxy far away, a long time ago, a compiler called jikes tried > to > do that - their last or so release basically made a -Wall mode the > default one, > and showered the users with pedantic warnings about the quality of > their > code. Unsurprisingly, faced with hundreds or thousands of warnings on > code bases that compiled cleanly with other compilers, developers > blamed > the compiler, and turned the pedantic mode off, rather then spending > their > time fixing the issues the compiler complained about. > > Static analysis tools can tell you which of the code out there is > below average > quality - Freud can tell you that its developers likely don't want to > know that, > anyway. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
