4 ms·

> Wait... so your point is that since "bad programmers" do this, there shouldn't be a warning for it? That is among the silliest thing I ever heard. In all hon

> Wait... so your point is that since "bad programmers" do this, there shouldn't be a warning for it? That is among the silliest thing I ever heard. In all honesty while I don't agree with this particular instance, the reasoning isn't ridiculous. If we assume it's true that it'd only affect bad programmers, then you probably wouldn't want to add it, since it'd increase the false positive risk and/or otherwise potentially get in the way of everyone else. (Kind of like how you wouldn't make cars start honking when they're turned on as a means of protecting against bad drivers, even thought that might well save lives.) Some tools just need to assume some base level of expertise to be effective.

OskarS 7y ago
If you want to make the argument "this is a bad warning because it will cause many false positives", then that's a perfectly valid argument to make. It doesn't really apply in this case, but it's a valid argument to make against a warning being added. That's not the reasoning given. The reasoning given is that since only bad programmers would make this mistake, it shouldn't be a warning at all, since those kinds of programmers "will create a lot of other problems regardless". That is nonsensical. You could make the same argument against ANY warning. The whole point of a warning is to alert the developers that, while their code technically follows the rules of the language, they've probably made a mistake.
mikeash 7y ago
You snuck in a second premise to the argument: that it will increase the false positive risk. And if we accept that premise, we don’t need the other one. Bad programmers are the ones who need the most help from our tools. Saying there’s no need for a warning because only bad programmers will benefit is like saying there’s no need for crossing guards because only stupid children get killed crossing the street.
- estebank 7y ago
  I think you just helped me understand where the objection comes from. The people against this warning seem to feel infantilized by these type of warnings, much in the way you're comparing it to crossing guards for children. My view, and I guess the view of people arguing for these kind of warnings see them like seatbelts: a mild annoyance that is very much worth it.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Sounds about right. I don’t really get it myself. As a professional C and C++ programmer, every mistake is punished severely by the computer and I want all the help I can get in avoiding them. Warnings aren’t annoying, what’s annoying are one-in-a-thousand crashes that only happen on someone else’s computer.
  - ken 7y ago
    I would say this seems more like airbags: a safety feature which requires no work on the user's part, 99.999% of the time, and which you might not even know exists up until the point when it jumps into action to save you.

OskarS 7y ago

If you want to make the argument "this is a bad warning because it will cause many false positives", then that's a perfectly valid argument to make. It doesn't really apply in this case, but it's a valid argument to make against a warning being added. That's not the reasoning given. The reasoning given is that since only bad programmers would make this mistake, it shouldn't be a warning at all, since those kinds of programmers "will create a lot of other problems regardless". That is nonsensical. You could make the same argument against ANY warning. The whole point of a warning is to alert the developers that, while their code technically follows the rules of the language, they've probably made a mistake.

mikeash 7y ago

You snuck in a second premise to the argument: that it will increase the false positive risk. And if we accept that premise, we don’t need the other one. Bad programmers are the ones who need the most help from our tools. Saying there’s no need for a warning because only bad programmers will benefit is like saying there’s no need for crossing guards because only stupid children get killed crossing the street.

estebank 7y ago
I think you just helped me understand where the objection comes from. The people against this warning seem to feel infantilized by these type of warnings, much in the way you're comparing it to crossing guards for children. My view, and I guess the view of people arguing for these kind of warnings see them like seatbelts: a mild annoyance that is very much worth it.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Sounds about right. I don’t really get it myself. As a professional C and C++ programmer, every mistake is punished severely by the computer and I want all the help I can get in avoiding them. Warnings aren’t annoying, what’s annoying are one-in-a-thousand crashes that only happen on someone else’s computer.
- ken 7y ago
  I would say this seems more like airbags: a safety feature which requires no work on the user's part, 99.999% of the time, and which you might not even know exists up until the point when it jumps into action to save you.