On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:14:42AM +0100, Josef Reidinger wrote: > V Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:47:13 +0100 > Arvin Schnell <[email protected]> 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 -- Arvin Schnell, <[email protected]> Senior Software Engineer, Research & Development SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
