[eddd-ddde]

I disagree. You'll be surprised to hear this, but source code... is just a very big string...

If you can run static analysis on that you can run static analysis on string literals. Much like how C will give you warnings for mismatched printf arguments.

[maweki]

You might be surprised to hear that most compilers and static analysis tools in general do not inspect (string and other) literals, while they do indeed inspect all the other parts and structure of the abstract syntax tree.

[eddd-ddde]

I know, but that's the point, if you can get a string into an AST you can just do the same thing with the string literals. It's not magic.

[jerf]

This is one of those ideas that I've seen kicking around for at least a decade now, but manifesting it in real code is easier said than done. And that isn't even the real challenge, the real challeng is keeping it working over time.

I've seen some stuff based on treesitter that seems to be prompting a revival of the idea, but it still has fundamental issues, e.g., if I'm embedding in python:

    sql = "SELECT * FROM table "
    if arbitrarilyComplicatedCondition:
        sql += "INNER JOIN a AS joined ON table.thing = a.id "
    else:
        sql += "INNER JOIN b AS joined ON table.thing = b.id "
    sql += "WHERE joined.

and if you imagine trying to write something to autocomplete at the point I leave off, you're fundamentally stuck on not knowing which table to autocomplete with. It doesn't matter what tech you swing at the problem, since trying to analyze "arbitrarilyComplicatedCondition" is basically Turing Complete (which I will prove by vigorous handwave here because turning that into a really solid statement would be much larger than this entire post, but, it can be done). And that's just a simple and quick example, it's not just "autocomplete", it's any analysis you may want to do on the embedded content.

This is just a simple example; they get arbitrarily complicated, quickly. This is one of those things that when you think of the simple case it seems so easy but when you try to bring it into the real world it immediately explodes with all the complexity your mind's eye was ignoring.

[scott_w]

Not in the standard language functions. If you wanted to achieve this, you have to write your own parser. That parser is, by definition, not the language parser, adding a level of difficulty to proving any correctness of your program.

There's a reason the term "stringly-typed" is used as a criticism of a language.

[saghm]

You can't get an arbitrary string into an AST, only ones that can be at parsed correctly. Rejecting the invalid strings that wouldn't make sense to do analysis on is pretty much the same thing that the parent comment is saying to do with regexes, SQL, etc., just as part of the existing compilation that's happening via the type system rather than at runtime.

[skeledrew]

Everything can be abstracted away using specialized objects, which can allow for better checking. The Python AST itself is just specialized objects, and it can be extended (but of course with much more work, esp in the analysis tools). There's also this very ingenious - IMO - monstrosity: https://pydong.org/posts/PythonsPreprocessor/. Pick your poison.