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||(Rated List-class)|
|WikiProject Lists||(Rated List-class)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of tools for static code analysis article.|
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)
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)
Sublime Text is an extremely popular editor, and SublimeLinter is an extremly popular linting/static code analysis tool for Subl. Might be worth adding to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
QuickTest has vbscript codeanalysis. There are very few code analysis tools available, as reported in engineers discussion forums such as  Beside QuickTest, HP Fortify already mentioned in this Wikipedia list seems to be the only other tool available for vbscript code analysis. QuickTest maybe should be added to the list.  I did not edit the article itself, leaving to a reader of this talk addition to decide if QuickTest is worthy of adding.