Performing static analysis does not eliminate the need for dynamic analysis in
software development and testing. The two approaches are complementary, as they
target different types of issues and stages in the software lifecycle, ensuring
more comprehensive code quality, security, and reliability.
Static analysis examines code without executing it, catching early defects like
syntax errors, code smells, or potential vulnerabilities through pattern matching
and flow-based checks, often achieving 100% code coverage. However, it cannot
detect runtime-specific problems, such as memory leaks that only manifest after
prolonged execution (e.g., a system crashing on day four in production despite
passing static checks), unhandled exceptions triggered by real inputs, or
concurrency issues like race conditions in multithreaded environments. Dynamic
analysis, by executing the code, reveals these subtle, complex defects that are too
intricate for static tools to predict, while also measuring actual resource usage
(e.g., RAM or execution time) and identifying security vulnerabilities that emerge
during operation.
For instance, in a code snippet where an array index is set via user input (like
scanf), static analysis might flag potential out-of-bounds access with annotations,
but dynamic analysis can confirm the error by running with invalid inputs that
cause overruns. Conversely, static analysis excels at spotting logic errors, such
as copy-paste mistakes in function bodies that dynamic analysis might overlook if
the code runs without immediate failure. No single method finds every error—static
covers all possible paths but generates false positives and misses execution-
dependent issues, while dynamic provides accurate runtime insights but may not
achieve full coverage without extensive test data.
Combining both reduces bug occurrences, enhances detection of threat vectors, saves
time and costs by addressing issues early, and leads to higher-quality software,
especially in critical systems. In practice, integrating them into development
workflows (e.g., static in CI/CD pipelines and dynamic in testing environments) is
a best practice for thorough verification.
