Mention Miss_hit on the turing way book?

[Remi-Gau]

I was wondering if it would make sense to maybe mention all this work in the turing-way book.

They have a chapter on code quality where it would make a great addition.

https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/reproducible-research/code-quality.html

FYI: I can take care of it if you want. :-)

[florianschanda]

If you want to, sure.

Probably best you do it and not me, because there is a lot I would change/complain about there. They seem to think that static analysis == linter and verification == testing; and that's just omitting so much that it physically pains me ;)

[florianschanda]

To clarify: linting is static analysis, but there is more. You have 3 attributes:

• sound (we never miss a bug)
• complete (any bug we complain about really is a bug)
• automatic (no human cooperation required)

Linting tools are automatic, but neither sound nor complete.

They are ignoring overapproximate analysis (sound & automatic); underapproximate analysis (complete & automatic); and deductive verification (sound & complete).

And if they're aiming their things at the scientific community they probably should at least mention these.

[florianschanda]

@Remi-Gau were you doing to suggest an update to them? If so I'll leave it open and assign you. Otherwise I'll close the ticket (want to do some issue cleaning :))