On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 11:42:12 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 12 December 2013 21:16, Dicebot <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 09:01:17 UTC, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
Currently I always advocate that C and C++ development should
always be done with warnings as errors enabled, coupled with
static analyzers at very least during CI builds, breaking
them if
anything is found.
I literally can't imagine any large C project surviving any
long
without mandatory doing all listed stuff. It gets to state of
unmaintainable insanity so fast.
I feel quite the opposite, I would say that about C++
personally.
I've built a C codebase from the ground over the course of a
decade with
~25 programmers.
It takes discipline, and a certainly sense of simplicity in
your solutions.
I personally advocate C over C++ for this very reason, it
emphasises
simplicity in your solutions. It's impossible to get carried
away and
create the sort of unmaintainable bullshit that C++ leads to.
I like C, I just find it verbose, and prone to boiler plate,
which has a
tendency to waste programmers time... and what is more valuable
than a
programmers time?
I favor C++ over C, thanks to the safer constructs it offers me
with a type safety closer to the Pascal family of languages, that
C will never be able to offer.
However I tend to code very seldom in C or C++ nowadays, besides
hobby projects, as the enterprise world nowadays is all about GC
enabled languages, with a little C++ for performance hotspots.
In any case, given my enterprise experience with subcontractors,
I think it is very hard to find good developers that are able to
write error free C or C++ code without lots of enforced
guidelines to guide them screaming along the way.
--
Paulo
