Hacker News Reader

Comment by AYBABTME | Hacker News Reader

That analysis is pretty bad, the code is clean and straightforward, yet that tool reports a bunch of random non-issues.

Like near-copy pasta: https://codebeat.co/projects/github-com-google-seesaw/report... ?

Well, there is `EngineCon` interface [1]. And two types (`engineIPC` [2] and `engineRPC` [3]) that implement the interface. That's why there is some repetition. So, what?

[1]: https://github.com/google/seesaw/blob/master/common/conn/con... [2]: https://github.com/google/seesaw/blob/master/common/conn/ipc... [3]: https://github.com/google/seesaw/blob/master/common/conn/rpc...

Yes, horrible to duplicate standard boilerplate...

Are you adding something to the discussion or are you getting a commission for selling that crappy code quality tool?

EDIT: ok, apparently it is your product. Congratulations on successfully leaving a bad impression.

Guilty - my apologies. Except rather than sell it I'm simply looking for feedback. While the culture of using similar tools (reek, rubocop, flay, flog etc.) exists in the Ruby ecosystem and it's easier to calibrate algorithms and expectations Go is an uncharted territory. This is something I'm really after and again sincere apologies for my previous misdemeanor.

Finding a popular project where your tool finds good issues and writing a blog post analyzing them might be a good way to get attention and feedback.

(the team making PVS-Studio (a static code analyzer for C/C++) does this)

It's good etiquette to include a disclaimer, since this code analysis is a tool/company you are affiliated with.

Personally I've never seen any of these code analysis tools produce anything remotely useful. De-duplicating code might be nice in some cases but it certainly has nearly nothing to do with the over-all software quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com