Why PVS-Studio 4.00 is a paid solution
Unfortunately, we will have to make the PVS-Studio 4.00 static analyzer fully paid. We planned to make paid only a set of 64-bit rules, and general-purpose analysis and analysis of OpenMP-programs free for use. But the world is harsh and did not support our initiatives.
Free sets of rules were conceived as a way to introduce as many programmers as possible to PVS-Studio and simultaneously try to interest them in identifying 64-bit defects. Free of charge, as we hoped, will allow us to write more freely about our tool. After all, everyone around them diligently pretends that various IT communities are more loyal to free tools. We suspected that this was not entirely true, and now we are convinced of this.
Let me explain this with a practical example. In due time, we published a number of articles on CodeProject , many of which the programmers really liked. For example, the article " 32 OpenMP Traps For C ++ Developers " was recognized as an article of the month. But then, the administration of CodeProject decided that it would be good to take money from us, for what we wrote about PVS-Studio. But no, they did not say so directly. They started fooling us about the fact that CodeProject is a portal of open projects, and once you write about PVS-Studio, you should be able to download something and run it for free. Of course, in reality they wanted money, but to write directly, for some reason, it is considered bad form. At that time we didn’t have any money at all and we pretended that they did not understand their hints. As a result, a number of articles in which our products were mentioned were removed from CodeProject, including the article “32 OpenMP Traps For C ++ Developers”. The removal criterion was outrageously stupid simple, where it is written about Viva64 / VivaMP - delete. Only our worst articles remain (in terms of benefit to readers). Here is such a struggle for the purity of the ranks.
')
We fostered, calmed down and decided to return to CodeProject when we have a free general-purpose analyzer. At that time there were already plans for its creation. And here we are writing an article that a new free tool is now available to programmers to test their programs. I like the article, people read it, give high marks to the article. And now, finally, the administration removes the mask, since it can no longer litter the brain on the subject of free of charge and honestly writes that you have a commercial project, so you still have to pay.
... However, your article 'Let the world tremble! We've released PVS-Studio 4.00 with a free general-purpose analyzer! ' has been deleted because it’s advertised and not an article. We’d be happy to talk about our showcase section. ....
In general, of course, this is not an article, this is an advertisement (a free tool!). Welcome to the paid section! I can not blame them for anything. They want money. For example, we also want money. Natural desire. But to post information about the free tool in the paid catalog, we are somehow not morally ready, we are not Google or Intel.
So, free analyzer to work with CodeProject did not help us. No better deal with Wikipedia. As we were removed there, and removed as before. To get to the page like " List of tools for static code analysis " we are not familiar with the local mafia. It is clear that it is necessary to find the right person and “stimulate” him to write about us, etc. But the soul is protesting, thus promoting free. It is better then immediately promote the paid. Just please do not write in response to the topic of freedom of speech in Wikipedia and others.
In general, all ideas have burst, how can you use the advantage that the analyzer is free. And instead of the advantage, we got a complex licensing system (one paid analyzer, two free ones). People began to ask, is it paid or not? And what is paid?
As a result, we decided, since we do not know how to take advantage of free features, then there is nothing to worry about. Just did everything for a fee . Now the user acquires all 3 sets of rules at a very affordable price (compared to others).
Someone will say that a little expensive. Far from it. First, market leaders have much higher prices. And if we compare it with products of the Gimpel PC-lint class, then we consider PVS-Studio better in many ways. For example, do not need to separately purchase the GUI Visual Lint. Yes, the same PC-lint has more diagnostic rules. But this is only bye more. And in the second half is completely useless for developers using Visual Studio. Many defects are perfectly detected by the Visual C ++ compiler, and such as “538. The size of the array is more than 64 kilobytes "is simply meaningless. And we look to the future. For example, recently added the rule " V554. Incorrect use of unique_ptr". I searched in many projects, but nowhere did I find an error regarding the use of unique_ptr. But not because the rule is not necessary, but simply nobody else uses this unique_ptr (this is from C ++ 0x). And the errors associated with its use will be required.
This text is written as an answer to the question of why we suddenly decided not to give the world a free tool. However, I thank everyone who sent error messages and suggestions. We appreciate them a lot and have already implemented a lot of things or are selling them soon. Yes, the tool itself is still easy to download and try. A demo version is available, the only limitation of which is that it shows the location of only 25% of the errors in the code. So who really wants freebies, and who doesn’t need support, he can clean out his code using the iterative verification method :). Yes, this is an omission, and we will think how to deal with it.
But, by the way, it should be noted that compatriots are pulling up gradually, and the number of clients from Russia is growing (although not as fast as we would like). This makes me happy.
Free sets of rules were conceived as a way to introduce as many programmers as possible to PVS-Studio and simultaneously try to interest them in identifying 64-bit defects. Free of charge, as we hoped, will allow us to write more freely about our tool. After all, everyone around them diligently pretends that various IT communities are more loyal to free tools. We suspected that this was not entirely true, and now we are convinced of this.
Let me explain this with a practical example. In due time, we published a number of articles on CodeProject , many of which the programmers really liked. For example, the article " 32 OpenMP Traps For C ++ Developers " was recognized as an article of the month. But then, the administration of CodeProject decided that it would be good to take money from us, for what we wrote about PVS-Studio. But no, they did not say so directly. They started fooling us about the fact that CodeProject is a portal of open projects, and once you write about PVS-Studio, you should be able to download something and run it for free. Of course, in reality they wanted money, but to write directly, for some reason, it is considered bad form. At that time we didn’t have any money at all and we pretended that they did not understand their hints. As a result, a number of articles in which our products were mentioned were removed from CodeProject, including the article “32 OpenMP Traps For C ++ Developers”. The removal criterion was outrageously stupid simple, where it is written about Viva64 / VivaMP - delete. Only our worst articles remain (in terms of benefit to readers). Here is such a struggle for the purity of the ranks.
')
We fostered, calmed down and decided to return to CodeProject when we have a free general-purpose analyzer. At that time there were already plans for its creation. And here we are writing an article that a new free tool is now available to programmers to test their programs. I like the article, people read it, give high marks to the article. And now, finally, the administration removes the mask, since it can no longer litter the brain on the subject of free of charge and honestly writes that you have a commercial project, so you still have to pay.
... However, your article 'Let the world tremble! We've released PVS-Studio 4.00 with a free general-purpose analyzer! ' has been deleted because it’s advertised and not an article. We’d be happy to talk about our showcase section. ....
In general, of course, this is not an article, this is an advertisement (a free tool!). Welcome to the paid section! I can not blame them for anything. They want money. For example, we also want money. Natural desire. But to post information about the free tool in the paid catalog, we are somehow not morally ready, we are not Google or Intel.
So, free analyzer to work with CodeProject did not help us. No better deal with Wikipedia. As we were removed there, and removed as before. To get to the page like " List of tools for static code analysis " we are not familiar with the local mafia. It is clear that it is necessary to find the right person and “stimulate” him to write about us, etc. But the soul is protesting, thus promoting free. It is better then immediately promote the paid. Just please do not write in response to the topic of freedom of speech in Wikipedia and others.
In general, all ideas have burst, how can you use the advantage that the analyzer is free. And instead of the advantage, we got a complex licensing system (one paid analyzer, two free ones). People began to ask, is it paid or not? And what is paid?
As a result, we decided, since we do not know how to take advantage of free features, then there is nothing to worry about. Just did everything for a fee . Now the user acquires all 3 sets of rules at a very affordable price (compared to others).
Someone will say that a little expensive. Far from it. First, market leaders have much higher prices. And if we compare it with products of the Gimpel PC-lint class, then we consider PVS-Studio better in many ways. For example, do not need to separately purchase the GUI Visual Lint. Yes, the same PC-lint has more diagnostic rules. But this is only bye more. And in the second half is completely useless for developers using Visual Studio. Many defects are perfectly detected by the Visual C ++ compiler, and such as “538. The size of the array is more than 64 kilobytes "is simply meaningless. And we look to the future. For example, recently added the rule " V554. Incorrect use of unique_ptr". I searched in many projects, but nowhere did I find an error regarding the use of unique_ptr. But not because the rule is not necessary, but simply nobody else uses this unique_ptr (this is from C ++ 0x). And the errors associated with its use will be required.
This text is written as an answer to the question of why we suddenly decided not to give the world a free tool. However, I thank everyone who sent error messages and suggestions. We appreciate them a lot and have already implemented a lot of things or are selling them soon. Yes, the tool itself is still easy to download and try. A demo version is available, the only limitation of which is that it shows the location of only 25% of the errors in the code. So who really wants freebies, and who doesn’t need support, he can clean out his code using the iterative verification method :). Yes, this is an omission, and we will think how to deal with it.
But, by the way, it should be noted that compatriots are pulling up gradually, and the number of clients from Russia is growing (although not as fast as we would like). This makes me happy.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/110405/
All Articles