Final answer:
Static analysis allows defects to be identified early in the software development lifecycle that might not be caught by dynamic testing, reducing costs and efforts for fixing these issues later. It involves both manual reviews and automated tools, contrary to the misconception that tools are not required for conducting static analysis.
Step-by-step explanation:
The benefit of static analysis is that defects can be identified that might not be caught by dynamic testing. Static analysis involves a set of processes that inspect and evaluate source code without actually executing the code. It helps in detecting errors, code smells, and security vulnerabilities that are difficult to find during dynamic testing. This form of analysis takes place very early in the software development lifecycle, facilitating the identification and removal of defects before the code goes into production. One of the main advantages is the early defect identification, which reduces the costs and efforts required to fix these issues later in the development process. Unlike dynamic testing that requires an executable program, static analysis can analyze the code before it runs.
Furthermore, it is a misconception that tools are not needed because reviews are used. In fact, both manual reviews and automated tools are commonly used in static analysis to provide a more comprehensive quality assessment. Experts, such as engineers, often have a pretty good sense of what the answer is even before a detailed analysis and use static analysis as a way to identify possible mistakes, forcing a closer look at the quality of the design. This is especially important in scenarios where prototypes were not tested adequately, and static analysis serves as an additional layer of quality assurance.