begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 06:19:33PM -0700: > Stewart Stremler wrote: > >I suspect you don't have any data-structures-in-C textbooks lying > >around. > > Oh, I do. I just don't have any who deign to demonstrate that they have > actually *tested* their code. > > A library without unit tests == a broken library. > > And, because unit testing in C is such a PITA, nobody does it.
Well, if you do the "compile everything with a .c into a .o and then link all of the .o files into one executable", yeah. If you set up your Makefile explicitly as you go along, it's not that bad. Although, if you're looking for a unified unit-test system with a green or red bar, yeah, I haven't seen much of that. It's been a long time since I've done much in C other than "make it compile on one of my machine". :-/ > >I used to have a directory full of simple C data structures -- > >singly-linked list, doubly-linked list, hashtable, binary tree, > >etc. -- but I seem to have lost that directory. > > Circular buffer is what I was looking for. I don't remember if I had that in C or M68k ASM. > >>I'd forgotten just how low-level C is. Yuck. > > > >Heh. > > > >I'd rather do C and C++.... > > No, sorry. And I'm a *hardware* guy. Whoops, sorry, my typo. I *meant* to write "I'd rather to C than C++". > I use C because it is often the most appropriate language. Embedded > systems have a hard time functioning with anything else. Although, I'm > staring at Gambit (Scheme compiled to C) quite hard. That would be interesting. > C++. You know what--I can't be bothered anymore. Too much special case > syntax. When I pulled out the fifth C++ reference (Effective C++ 1&2, > Effective STL, IOStreams, STL tutorial & reference guide), I stopped. Heh. > When I need to go get my references to write a simple foreach loop (and > figure out how to write functors ... again ...), C++ is losing. Management loves it, for some reason. (The big QA guy on the current project loathes Java and loves C++. I don't understand why. But then, he loves "process", too, so I'm sure I wouldn't understand his reasons.) > At this point I'd rather do X & C where X is, well, just about anything > other than C++. Okay, maybe not Perl, but I'd have to think about that > a bit. If it's me writing it, I'll take perl over C++. For maintenance.... well.... perl still looks pretty attractive. In comparison. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
