JSHint VS infer

jshint -> Old library

also, if you are going to code for this sheet and do not know about the website jshint.com, you need to know about jshint.com

There is an error in some file. Or maybe some wine shenanigans (never used it). You can try searching for the file item-possessionLimit.js and paste it into something like https://jshint.com/ to get an analysis and try to fix it. But it might give you further errors or file might be packed somewhere.

If you are coding for this sheet and you do not know about jshint.com ...

JSHint

I came across a problem where I had to find the ES6 features used by any javascript project and other data regarding their use. When I reached out to stackoverflow, I could find only one relevant post which asks you to use linters like jshint/jshint or compilers like babel. Jslint didn't seem to report anything specific to ES6 and Babel converts all the ES6+ features to ES5 but doesn't report anything regarding which constructs were used or how many times they were used. However, Jshint reported all ES6 features used in the code along with some metadata. And, to suit my needs, I ended up writing a python script that calls Jshint on all JS files in a project and presents the features used in the project and the number of times they were used across all files. You can find the code here : jsHintRunner

Javascript Linting parses and checks if any syntax is violating the rule. If a violation occurs, a warning is shown explaining unexpected behavior. Use the online version for small projects: JSLint, ESLint or JSHint. For larger projects, it is recommended to use a task runner like Gulp or Grunt. Linters ensure developers are following the best practices as a result of which few bugs appear during project development.

If you don't know https://jshint.com/ and want to script for this sheet, then you should know https://jshint.com/

If you don't know it, you should: jshint.com That website has saved me a few headaches.

Did you try jshint.com ?

I think most development occurs on problems that can't be formally modeled anyway. Most developers work on things like, "can you add this feature to the e-commerce site? And can the pop-up be blue?" which isn't really model-able.

But that's not to say that formal methods are useless! We can still prove some interesting aspects of programs -- for example, that every lock that gets acquired later gets released. I think tools like Infer[0] could become common in the coming years.

[0]: https://fbinfer.com/

Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code.

Meta/Facebook are long time OCaml users, their logo is on the OCaml website. Their static analysis tool and its predecessor are both written in OCaml.

Then this idea that the US government will tell tech companies how to write secure software. Let's get this straight, the private sector, especially big tech is miles ahead of US government in this regard. Microsoft literally invented threat modelling and modern exploit mitigations. Facebook has the best appsec processes pretty much in the whole world, including their own cutting edge code analyzer. AWS uses formal verification everywhere. Meanwhile the US government itself runs mission-critical systems that's almost literally held together by bubble gum and toothpicks. Maybe they could dial down the arrogance a tad, get their own shit together, learn how this cyber stuff is actually done and only then try lecturing everyone else.

Efforts: Dependabot, CodeQL, Coverity, facebook's Infer tool, etc

I notice there isn't fbinfer. It's pretty cool, and is used for this library.

"Move fast, break stuff" is a great approach when you aren't pushing the broken bits to production. Fuck, even Facebook, the big "move fast, break stuff" company, uses tools to detect errors in its continuous integration toolchain. https://fbinfer.com/

TBH, there's a non-zero amount of non-"ivory tower" tools you may have used that are written in functional languages. Say, Pandoc or Shellcheck are written in Haskell; Infer and Flow are written in OCaml. RabbitMQ and Whatsapp are implemented in Erlang (FB Messenger was too, originally; they switched to the C++ servers later). Twitter backend is (or was, at least) written in Scala.