The VS-700C’s dedicated implementation of ACT (Active Controller Technology) dynamically remaps controls based on how the user is working in SONAR. The VS-700C was designed jointly by Cakewalk and Roland, and offers control over all aspects of SONAR 8 Producer’s creative, editing, and mixing capabilities. Click here to explore.Musikmesse 2009: Cakewalk announced the VS-700C V-Studio Console as a standalone control surface for SONAR 8 Producer.
Sonar 8 studio academic code#
QScored: An open and free platform for code quality ranking and visualization.
Sonar 8 studio academic download#
If you would like to see the detailed smell/issue-wise comparison and mapping, you may download this excel sheet. Along similar lines, NDepend and SonarQube tag each issue with its severity to help the developer choose what to refactor first.
![sonar 8 studio academic sonar 8 studio academic](https://com-eventide-drupaluserfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/award___review_thumbnail/s3/article/thumbnail/music-radar.jpg)
Continuous Integration: All three tools support CI.To summarize, NDepend offers more for implementation granularity quality issues whereas Designite does more for design and architecture aspects. For architecture granularity, NDepend identified 3 architectural issues among them 2 were covered by Designite too Designite detected 5 unique architecture smells not covered by NDepend. For design granularity, NDepend reported 5 unique issues against Designite’s 13 unique design smells 12 design smells were reported by both the tools.
![sonar 8 studio academic sonar 8 studio academic](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDsY9_LaQAECDf3.jpg)
However, Designite covered design and architecture quality issues much better than NDepend. It is evident that NDepend is much better than Designite for implementation smells/issues where NDepend identifies 66 unique issues whereas Designite reported 6 unique issues and the rest 7 were reported by both of the tools. Some issues are common between two tools and some are their unique offering.įollowing figure shows the comparison between issues reported by Designite and NDepend. I mapped each of the reported issues by all three tools to the implementation, design, and architecture granularity based on the scope and impact of the issue. Each tool has a set of rules and quality issues are violations of those rules. Reported quality issues are the meat of such analysis tools. I wrote a post a few years ago about why technical debt quantification is not reliable. SonarQube and NDepend also report technical debt quantified in a number. The big difference comes from the way tools count LOC Designite counts all non-empty lines (including comments). One vast difference is in reporting LOC SonarQube reported 192KLOC, NDepend 272KLOC, and Designite 726KLOC.
![sonar 8 studio academic sonar 8 studio academic](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/B2kAAOSwJzFhMv90/s-l300.jpg)
SonarQube and Designite reported 2.7% and 9.15% code duplication respectively. Designite identified 1.7K architecture, 7.8K design, and approximately 41K implementation smell instances.
Sonar 8 studio academic software#
NDepend indicates that the software fails 4 quality gates with a total number of issues close to 20K. SonarQube reported 125 bugs and 4.5 thousand code smells for the analyzed system. Each tool reports its findings in its unique way.