3 ms·

I wouldn't consider C++ Builder as C++. Have not used it in ages, but last time I used it, it was not C++. Anyway, that's is not exactly what I was talking abou

I wouldn't consider C++ Builder as C++. Have not used it in ages, but last time I used it, it was not C++. Anyway, that's is not exactly what I was talking about. I think even the tools you listed lacked years behind useful features that eclipse and netbeans implemented for java like refactoring. I'm glad there are good front-ends to the llvm language server though and that static analyzers are slowly improving and becoming more popular even to the sporadic hobbyist.

pjmlp 5y ago
C++ Builder compiles C++, thus it is C++. I will never understand why clang and GCC extensions are considered part of C or C++, while other compilers aren't. Refactoring exists for 20 years in Visual Studio with plugins like Visual Assist. The tools I mentioned as ahead of their time allowed for a Lisp Machines or Smalltalk like experience for C++, respectively.
- marcodiego 5y ago
  > C++ Builder compiles C++, thus it is C++. By your definition. > I will never understand why clang and GCC extensions are considered part of C or C++, while other compilers aren't. Didn't say so. > Refactoring exists for 20 years in Visual Studio with plugins like Visual Assist. That one is new for me. Didn't know it. Would love to have it not locked to a single proprietary non multi-platform IDE. > The tools I mentioned as ahead of their time allowed for a Lisp Machines or Smalltalk like experience for C++, respectively. And they didn't succeed, become popular and were mostly completely unreachable to the sporadic hobbyist.
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    > Would love to have it not locked to a single proprietary non multi-platform IDE. https://doc.qt.io/qtcreator/creator-editor-quick-fixes.html https://doc.qt.io/qtcreator/creator-editor-quick-fixes.html
    - marcodiego 5y ago
      Nice! Thanks!
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    My definition is that being commercial products is completely irrelevant to the fact that the toolings did exist.
Someone 5y ago
That’s because the preprocessor adds too much flexibility to make it easy to write such tools. Once you have #ifdef FOO ... #else ... #endif you have to completely preprocess the compilation unit to find out which branch is taken. That means you have to interpret the build script (which may do -DFOO, possibly only for some compilation targets) You have to do that even for such simple things as syntax coloring. Now, you say “I simply parse both branches, check what things they define, somehow merge the two, and we’re good to go”. That won’t work, as the not taken branch(es) need not contain valid C/C++, and their validity may depend on whether other branches are taken. the preprocessor also has concatenation (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Concatenation.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Concatenation.html). That makes writing a refactoring tool as good as impossible (for example, how do you rename quit_command to commandExit in the example on that page?) Now, lots of code is fairly reasonable in its use of the preprocessor, but writing a reliable tool is a lot harder, if it’s possible at all, than with Java.
- marcodiego 5y ago
  Thanks for the reasonable view and explanation.

pjmlp 5y ago

C++ Builder compiles C++, thus it is C++. I will never understand why clang and GCC extensions are considered part of C or C++, while other compilers aren't. Refactoring exists for 20 years in Visual Studio with plugins like Visual Assist. The tools I mentioned as ahead of their time allowed for a Lisp Machines or Smalltalk like experience for C++, respectively.

marcodiego 5y ago
> C++ Builder compiles C++, thus it is C++. By your definition. > I will never understand why clang and GCC extensions are considered part of C or C++, while other compilers aren't. Didn't say so. > Refactoring exists for 20 years in Visual Studio with plugins like Visual Assist. That one is new for me. Didn't know it. Would love to have it not locked to a single proprietary non multi-platform IDE. > The tools I mentioned as ahead of their time allowed for a Lisp Machines or Smalltalk like experience for C++, respectively. And they didn't succeed, become popular and were mostly completely unreachable to the sporadic hobbyist.
- jcelerier 5y ago
  > Would love to have it not locked to a single proprietary non multi-platform IDE. https://doc.qt.io/qtcreator/creator-editor-quick-fixes.html https://doc.qt.io/qtcreator/creator-editor-quick-fixes.html
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    Nice! Thanks!
- pjmlp 5y ago
  My definition is that being commercial products is completely irrelevant to the fact that the toolings did exist.

Someone 5y ago

That’s because the preprocessor adds too much flexibility to make it easy to write such tools. Once you have #ifdef FOO ... #else ... #endif you have to completely preprocess the compilation unit to find out which branch is taken. That means you have to interpret the build script (which may do -DFOO, possibly only for some compilation targets) You have to do that even for such simple things as syntax coloring. Now, you say “I simply parse both branches, check what things they define, somehow merge the two, and we’re good to go”. That won’t work, as the not taken branch(es) need not contain valid C/C++, and their validity may depend on whether other branches are taken. the preprocessor also has concatenation (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Concatenation.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Concatenation.html). That makes writing a refactoring tool as good as impossible (for example, how do you rename quit_command to commandExit in the example on that page?) Now, lots of code is fairly reasonable in its use of the preprocessor, but writing a reliable tool is a lot harder, if it’s possible at all, than with Java.

marcodiego 5y ago
Thanks for the reasonable view and explanation.