4 ms·

Not a video fan and you have another comment mentioning static analysis I replied to. I have hunch you have something important to say about C++ static analysis

• pjmlp 3y ago
  Answered on the other thread. Basically it isn't perfect as solution, but by enabling them as if they part of the language, we get to clean up wrong defaults, and force best practices, specially if they are integrated as part of a CI/CD pipeline, including breaking the build when they aren't followed upon. It isn't a fullproof solution, but better than nothing, and plenty of domains aren't going to switch to anything else anyway. It is kind of ironic that even C's authors saw the need of such tooling and created lint in 1979, but apparently the FOSS hardly cared about such kind of tooling until clang came to be.
  • tialaramex 3y ago
    FWIW it's foolproof not "fullproof". The correct analysis is that this is proof against fools, in the same way that e.g. a rainproof electrical box is proof against rain, or a bulletproof armoured vehicle is proof against bullets. This is an example of an eggcorn, humans acquire language by exposure, you misunderstand a word or saying, you analyse its apparent meaning based on what you thought you understood, and then you apply that analysis, it's a completely normal part of human language use. In some cases, eggcorns become normalised enough that it's reasonable to say they're just a variant use, but in most cases they'd be regarded as errors, and so it's probably useful to know if you've picked up any eggcorns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
    • pjmlp 3y ago
      Fair enough, thanks for the correction.