I think the message is "regardless of what techniques, tools and analyzers you are using right now, more errors can still be found by applying just another tool".
You can't protect everything, but I'm sure they have a secure browser at NSA )
>That said, NASA/JPL publish code standards, although I imagine most tech companies would balk at giving up their toys and hot languages/frameworks to do fairly tedious work like this. For most companies developing…
The automation code will still contain much of the same errors. Besides, all modern IDE's provide multiple options for testing and refactoring (code corrections), but apparently this is not enough. At least this proves…
Thanks for your feedback!
I think the message is "regardless of what techniques, tools and analyzers you are using right now, more errors can still be found by applying just another tool".
You can't protect everything, but I'm sure they have a secure browser at NSA )
>That said, NASA/JPL publish code standards, although I imagine most tech companies would balk at giving up their toys and hot languages/frameworks to do fairly tedious work like this. For most companies developing…
The automation code will still contain much of the same errors. Besides, all modern IDE's provide multiple options for testing and refactoring (code corrections), but apparently this is not enough. At least this proves…
Thanks for your feedback!