![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
The tools added by 212.82.36.34 to this page refer to the commercial products of one (or two?) compiler vendor(s?). People in the program analysis research community do not consider these tools to be "standards" of any kind; there are dozens or hundreds of little compiler vendors in the world; these particular links are of little more encyclopedic interest than, say, your neighborhood plumber's web site. Hence, linking them up here may not be appropriate. At least, they should be clearly labeled as one set of commercial tools among many. See also similar edit to Optimization (computer science). k.lee 06:59, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Update: It appears that all of the contributions made on August 14 by 212.82.36.34 are links to commercial products by the same company, AbsInt. See, e.g., the edit to dinosaur --- in this case the page that it links to isn't even very informative: you have to click special links to get any graph that actually gives you any information, and the only complete version of the linked graph is in formats that most users will not be able to view.
Additionally, 212.82.36.34 is refusing reverse DNS lookups, but from here www.aisee.com is resolving 212.82.32.59, which is on the same subnet. I now strongly suspect that this is spam, or at least a well-meaning but misguided individual affiliated with this company. k.lee 07:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Two relevant points from the What Wikipedia is not page
And from the talk page of What Wikipedia is not;
Angela 01:00, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If the tools are non-standard, they should go, I reckon. Martin 13:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
AbsInt makes fairly interesting abstract interpretation-based static analysis tools, but they're not the only ones and their tools are not "standard" in any way. David.Monniaux 08:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In case you refer to Astreé, the development is lead by Cousot himself. Who defines what "standard" is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borishollas ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem with this definition: the function γ is not defined or quantified over, so we have no idea what it is. From notation used in the preceding paragraph, I would presume it's a concretization function, but we don't know.
-- saf 06:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Even by assuming that γ is a concretization function, which is consistent with the previous definitions, the definition of "valid abstraction" remains problematic. If γ is a concretization function it should have an abstract set as source and its corresponding concrete one as a target. But f has a concrete set as a target, so f cannot be composed with γ as in the definition. Also, the meaning of L1 and L2 should perhaps be explicitly clarified (the set of language terms and a semantic domain respectively?). The same remark holds for L1 and L2. Finally, one would possibly expect a pair of abstraction/concretization functions for both pairs of concrete/abstract sets, and a clear stating of whether α and γ are between the pair with subscript 1 or that with subscript 2 (the compositions with f and f′ in the definition suggest that the second case holds). Pietro Braione 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The definition does seem narrow, and most information needs sources. Some paragraphs have only one external source while other paragraphs has one every other sentence. Ros215 ( talk) 04:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I sent an email to GrammaTech and they told me that CodeSonar does not use AI. So I removed it from the list of tools.-- Borishollas ( talk) 17:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This does not aid understanding but rather merely rambles through cumbersome metaphors.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Abstract_Interpretation explains the issue briefly but understandably without any metaphors. Instead it builds intuition via simplification.
I vote to just remove this section. It would be easier to just start over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.224.170 ( talk) 00:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The section "Tools" was deleted by MrOllie. I agree that is it a spam magnet, but completely deleting it is an inadequately hard measure. As a compromise, I suggest to allow only tools that
In order to establish this as a strictly enforced policy, a wide consensus should be established here. - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 10:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
The tools added by 212.82.36.34 to this page refer to the commercial products of one (or two?) compiler vendor(s?). People in the program analysis research community do not consider these tools to be "standards" of any kind; there are dozens or hundreds of little compiler vendors in the world; these particular links are of little more encyclopedic interest than, say, your neighborhood plumber's web site. Hence, linking them up here may not be appropriate. At least, they should be clearly labeled as one set of commercial tools among many. See also similar edit to Optimization (computer science). k.lee 06:59, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Update: It appears that all of the contributions made on August 14 by 212.82.36.34 are links to commercial products by the same company, AbsInt. See, e.g., the edit to dinosaur --- in this case the page that it links to isn't even very informative: you have to click special links to get any graph that actually gives you any information, and the only complete version of the linked graph is in formats that most users will not be able to view.
Additionally, 212.82.36.34 is refusing reverse DNS lookups, but from here www.aisee.com is resolving 212.82.32.59, which is on the same subnet. I now strongly suspect that this is spam, or at least a well-meaning but misguided individual affiliated with this company. k.lee 07:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Two relevant points from the What Wikipedia is not page
And from the talk page of What Wikipedia is not;
Angela 01:00, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If the tools are non-standard, they should go, I reckon. Martin 13:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
AbsInt makes fairly interesting abstract interpretation-based static analysis tools, but they're not the only ones and their tools are not "standard" in any way. David.Monniaux 08:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In case you refer to Astreé, the development is lead by Cousot himself. Who defines what "standard" is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borishollas ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem with this definition: the function γ is not defined or quantified over, so we have no idea what it is. From notation used in the preceding paragraph, I would presume it's a concretization function, but we don't know.
-- saf 06:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Even by assuming that γ is a concretization function, which is consistent with the previous definitions, the definition of "valid abstraction" remains problematic. If γ is a concretization function it should have an abstract set as source and its corresponding concrete one as a target. But f has a concrete set as a target, so f cannot be composed with γ as in the definition. Also, the meaning of L1 and L2 should perhaps be explicitly clarified (the set of language terms and a semantic domain respectively?). The same remark holds for L1 and L2. Finally, one would possibly expect a pair of abstraction/concretization functions for both pairs of concrete/abstract sets, and a clear stating of whether α and γ are between the pair with subscript 1 or that with subscript 2 (the compositions with f and f′ in the definition suggest that the second case holds). Pietro Braione 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The definition does seem narrow, and most information needs sources. Some paragraphs have only one external source while other paragraphs has one every other sentence. Ros215 ( talk) 04:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I sent an email to GrammaTech and they told me that CodeSonar does not use AI. So I removed it from the list of tools.-- Borishollas ( talk) 17:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This does not aid understanding but rather merely rambles through cumbersome metaphors.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Abstract_Interpretation explains the issue briefly but understandably without any metaphors. Instead it builds intuition via simplification.
I vote to just remove this section. It would be easier to just start over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.224.170 ( talk) 00:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The section "Tools" was deleted by MrOllie. I agree that is it a spam magnet, but completely deleting it is an inadequately hard measure. As a compromise, I suggest to allow only tools that
In order to establish this as a strictly enforced policy, a wide consensus should be established here. - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 10:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)