6 ms·

A useful discussion of the conversion and its motivation in the GCC Wiki: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion

akkartik 14y ago
Also interesting to see how the style guide has changed: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions; http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html
- Paul_S 14y ago
  The "Spelling, terminology and markup" section is a bit painful. Does anyone really keep it printed and stapled to the wall in case they write non-zero rather than nonzero? Seems really petty. I hope the enforcement is done by simply running a regexp or ignored altogether. Code is where conventions are important, within comments I really wouldn't be upset if someone called Objective-C "Objective C".
  - scott_s 14y ago
    That's standard stuff for any organization that makes documents - keep in mind that the primary purpose of the list is for documentation and user-visible messages. The NY Times surely has a similar kind of list. Do you think that would be equally as painful?
    - Someone 14y ago
      Every decent paper has one; the NY Times is no exception. http://www.amazon.com/York-Times-Manual-Style-Usage/dp/0812963881 http://www.amazon.com/York-Times-Manual-Style-Usage/dp/08129.... 384 pages.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    There are entire books written about those sort style details. Personally I find it comforting in a strange sort of way to know that there are rules out there that I can follow if I wish.
emelski 14y ago
Here's the rationale from that document: * C++ is a standardized, well known, popular language. * C++ is nearly a superset of C90 used in GCC. * The C subset of C++ is just as efficient as C. * C++ supports cleaner code in several significant cases. * C++ makes it easier to write and enforce cleaner interfaces. * C++ never requires uglier code. * C++ is not a panacea but it is an improvement. It's interesting to me how defensive many of those justifications are. "It's just as efficient!" or "It's just a superset anyway!" Not until halfway through the list do we get any real description of expected benefits: C++ makes it easier to write and enforce interfaces, and C++ supports cleaner code in several significant cases. The last item is the most telling though: it's clear that these developers feel they've hit a point of crisis, and they are willing to take risks like this in order to lift themselves out of the problem.
- comex 14y ago
  > * C++ never requires uglier code. No... but it sure tends to encourage it.
  - quotemstr 14y ago
    You've not seen ugly code until you've read 90s-era Win32 UI code written with Hungarian notation everywhere. Ugly code comes from the programmer, not the language.
    - gte910h 14y ago
      It definitely comes from both. Objective C Block prototypes? C typedefs? blech.
      - chc 14y ago
        Unless I misunderstand you, block type syntax is almost identical to function pointers. In both cases, you should generally typedef them and then your code is once again free from ugliness.

akkartik 14y ago

Also interesting to see how the style guide has changed: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions; http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html

Paul_S 14y ago
The "Spelling, terminology and markup" section is a bit painful. Does anyone really keep it printed and stapled to the wall in case they write non-zero rather than nonzero? Seems really petty. I hope the enforcement is done by simply running a regexp or ignored altogether. Code is where conventions are important, within comments I really wouldn't be upset if someone called Objective-C "Objective C".
- scott_s 14y ago
  That's standard stuff for any organization that makes documents - keep in mind that the primary purpose of the list is for documentation and user-visible messages. The NY Times surely has a similar kind of list. Do you think that would be equally as painful?
  - Someone 14y ago
    Every decent paper has one; the NY Times is no exception. http://www.amazon.com/York-Times-Manual-Style-Usage/dp/0812963881 http://www.amazon.com/York-Times-Manual-Style-Usage/dp/08129.... 384 pages.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  There are entire books written about those sort style details. Personally I find it comforting in a strange sort of way to know that there are rules out there that I can follow if I wish.

emelski 14y ago

Here's the rationale from that document: * C++ is a standardized, well known, popular language. * C++ is nearly a superset of C90 used in GCC. * The C subset of C++ is just as efficient as C. * C++ supports cleaner code in several significant cases. * C++ makes it easier to write and enforce cleaner interfaces. * C++ never requires uglier code. * C++ is not a panacea but it is an improvement. It's interesting to me how defensive many of those justifications are. "It's just as efficient!" or "It's just a superset anyway!" Not until halfway through the list do we get any real description of expected benefits: C++ makes it easier to write and enforce interfaces, and C++ supports cleaner code in several significant cases. The last item is the most telling though: it's clear that these developers feel they've hit a point of crisis, and they are willing to take risks like this in order to lift themselves out of the problem.

comex 14y ago
> * C++ never requires uglier code. No... but it sure tends to encourage it.
- quotemstr 14y ago
  You've not seen ugly code until you've read 90s-era Win32 UI code written with Hungarian notation everywhere. Ugly code comes from the programmer, not the language.
  - gte910h 14y ago
    It definitely comes from both. Objective C Block prototypes? C typedefs? blech.
    - chc 14y ago
      Unless I misunderstand you, block type syntax is almost identical to function pointers. In both cases, you should generally typedef them and then your code is once again free from ugliness.