Re: [Boost-users] C++ and quality of software

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] C++ and quality of software
From: Klaim (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-26 06:11:27

>I think this is an embarrasement for google.
>Didn't they claim to hire only very good people?
>I would not want to work under these conditions.

Hi,

I think you need to read the explainations that follow each statements from
the google document. For example they don't say that they really don't use
exceptions, they just cannot use them in their "old" base code (that was
relying on old compilers) but allow usage in new softwares.

Just picking titles without reading the whole document (that I feel globally
makes sense because seems defined by practicallity) is not a good idea.

By the way, I don't think saying that not using exception (for example) is
bad practice, expecially on some embeded softwares. For example in video
games on game console hardware it's just not viable as explained in the
EASTL document there :
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2271.html
Even Stroustrup (in his last book if my memory is right) says that in some
limited environnements you just have to use a subset of C++. It's not bad,
it's flexibility.

I personally think that good practice and expeptionally breaking rule code
living together is sane. So I don't clearly understand the idea behind the
original mail of this thread.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 00:38, John Phillips <phillips_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> Marshall Clow wrote:
>
>> On Jan 25, 2010, at 1:49 PM, joel falcou wrote:
>>
>>  Bo Jensen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey I was not saying they were right, merely pointing out other
>>>> approaches. Some kind of boost cpplint might be a simple solution
>>>>
>>> Was just a bit amazed to find such stuff there, not criticizing your
>>> contribution.
>>>
>>> The boostlint idea is sound :)
>>>
>>
>> I agree.
>> And I think that the best way to do that is .... via clang.
>>        http://clang.llvm.org
>>
>> -- Marshall
>>
>
>  I recently (2 weeks ago) started working for Grammatech (makers of
> CodeSonar, see http://grammatech.com), and one of the things they were
> looking for when we interviewed was the ability to help their static
> analysis get to where it could provide high quality feedback on modern C++.
>
>  The tool makers are developing a strong interest in providing better
> analysis tools for C++, and hopefully that effort will succeed.
>
>                        John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>