Talk:List of tools for static code analysis
|This article is not a linkfarm. Before adding products to the list, make sure they are notable by having their own article. If not, try writing the article first.|
|WikiProject Computer science|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of tools for static code analysis article.|
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
The multi-language entry actually hampers readability and makes it hard to find all C/C++ (for instance) tools, because some of them are only listed in the 'multi-language' section. It would be easier to read if the tools were listed both under their language category and multi-language or if the multi-language section was removed. Alternately, a table showing each tool in a column and giving a checkbox for the various languages might be a good idea, along with licencins information in a first column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Notability for entries whose article is for the company, not the tool
The selection criteria for this list is the first one listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists—to, wit, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." I note that a number of the entries currently in the list do not link to an article for the tool itself, but rather to the company which produces sells the tool. Do such entries meet the selection criteria, or should they be removed? Or should we allow such entries only where the company's main claim to notability is as a producer of the tool? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Allowing tools that have just a company page means that we would have to allow any small tool, just because it is created in a big company. That would allow any big company to flood this list with their company name, by just releasing a huge amount of crappy tools. Besides the rule is pretty clear to me. The tool much have its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is an oversimplification for some entries on the page, like Veracode, whose "tool" is a SaaS service under the same name as the company. I've reverted the edit that removed that link. -Tjarrett (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Proprietary vs. Open Source
HLint and Shellcheck
I wouldn't say that HLint deserves a whole article describing it, but it is a good idea to at least list it, to make it easier to find. Static analysis tools are already fairly obscure, so it would be helpful to include it here.
If we still need to satisfy "notable" criteria, HLint is notable for being the only static analysis tool for Haskell code. Likewise for Shellcheck, the only known linter for .sh shell code.
- I understand what you are saying here—HLint and Shellcheck are probably indeed a "notable" tools in some sense. However, in Wikipedia parlance "notable" is employed in a very specific sense to mean something which has achieved significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Unless you can demonstrate that HLint and Shellcheck have attracted such coverage, then they probably don't belong on this list—see Wikipedia's guidelines for standalone lists for our inclusion criteria, and WP:NOTDIR for another take on why we don't catalogue software simply to "make it easier to find". If these tools do have such reliable sources, please write a short article on them first, and then add them to the list. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)