PVS-Studio team is open-minded when writing articles

    Our team checks various open projects with PVS-Studio and writes about the results of code analysis. From time to time, we are confronted with strange accusations of bias. We think that it is often “trolls”, and it does not make sense to engage in discussions with them. On the other hand, I do not want to leave such comments at all without an answer either. Therefore, I decided to write a short article in order to be able to respond with one link.

    Unicorn shocked by discussions

    We have written and continue to write articles devoted to checking various projects. We are engaged in educational marketing. Programmers learn useful information and at the same time get acquainted with the PVS-Studio code analyzer. Moreover, accumulating experience in checking open projects, we summarize information that allows you to make very interesting publications, such as:

    1. Last line effect
    2. Evil lives in comparison functions.
    3. 42 C ++ tips

    Now, about the negative reaction. Some articles unexpectedly cause very critical and even abusive comments. There were many such articles, and I don’t remember everything, but here are some:

    What only do not accuse us. The fact that we want to belittle the merits of the authors of a project, that a competitor bribed us and this custom article specifically denigrates the project that we are blackmailers and write bad articles when we have not bought a license. In general, that only we have not heard.

    I responsibly declare that when writing articles we are completely unbiased. We describe what we see. If there are many errors, we write that there are many errors. If the project is of high quality, then we write that we could not find any errors:

    Our goal is to popularize the static analysis methodology in general and demonstrate the capabilities of PVS-Studio. To do this, do not distort the results. If we did not find errors in one project, then we will find them in another. That's it, there is no conspiracy.

    Articles are written by different authors. Articles are different. Sometimes we get too carried away, trying to show that no one is immune from mistakes and typos. Sometimes articles can have bad humor. But we never wanted to offend anyone or blacken. By the way, we have to himself the exact same publication did .

    Our team earns money by selling licenses and selling expertise (auditing the customer code). Moreover, almost all of our clientsis closed. Accordingly, it makes no sense to look for the reason why we decided to write about errors in this or that open project. This project simply came to hand and became the object of study. We don't care if something was found in it or not.

    By the way, anyone can suggest a project for verification. But we do not promise that we will check it in the foreseeable future and that we will check it in general. There are many projects. And yet, on the threshold of some events, we prefer projects of a certain kind. When we adapted PVS-Studio to test embedded applications, it was reasonable to check RT-Thread IoT OS , and not, for example, a game. Soon we are planningshow PVS-Studio for Java and, of course, switch to open Java projects. Therefore, I give a hint. It’s not necessary to wait when we check your favorite project. You can do it yourself using the trial version.

    Follow the unicorn.  Try the PVS-Studio code analyzer.

    I hope I dispel the spirit of conspiracy theories. Thank you all for your attention. And try PVS-Studio yourself. You'll like it.

    Also popular now: