> But that's why we have linters, static analyzers, Which tend to be based on heuristics, rather than any sort of rigorous foundation. There's no shortage of s

> But that's why we have linters, static analyzers, Which tend to be based on heuristics, rather than any sort of rigorous foundation. There's no shortage of static analysis tools for C and C++ that reject good code and accept bad code. > style guides, Which can be very onerous, limiting your ability to define useful abstractions, leaving you with just the bad parts of the base language (e.g., Google's C++ Style Guide). > compiler options and warnings, No amount of compiler options or warnings will force you to use an abstract type, well, abstractly, in a language that has unrestricted memory access (C and C++), unrestricted reflection (Java, .NET, anything dynamic), or both (some Common Lisp implementations). > and ultimately code reviews and good taste. If only the latter weren't in short supply...