alternative linters

[Basile B.]

On Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 03:28:31 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
> On Monday, 15 December 2025 at 23:40:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 December 2025 at 16:03:48 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
>>> "linters are for code written by idiots you dont trust"
>>
>> Do linters based on AI
>
> For ai, classical computing
>
> Around a quantum chip is supercomputer and a network stack
>
>> not really a good linter
>
> Im not sure if I need a good linter, and i'm quite sure I 
> wouldn't agree with people who like linters on whats good.

I think D should do what I'made for STYX, [a 
linting-pass](https://gitlab.com/styx-lang/styx/-/blob/master/src/styx/lint.sx?ref_type=heads) directly in the compiler and that can be **optionally** run after sema. You just add a module, new CLI args and you're good. It's really a leaf feature, i.e everything is const and pure (the AST, _the xmas pine tree_, is already "decorated").

The problem of D-Scanner and maybe of any future potential AI 
solution is that it's based on a single module. Things like 
"unused import checks" are not possible. When you analize the 
quality with a compiler pass you suddently have the "project 
scope". That's a game changer.