- Unit testing (Re: Putting project code in many different files) - 2 Updates
- Let's talk about multiple inheritance and interfaces. - 1 Update
- Minecraft - 2 Updates
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Jan 28 10:34PM On Thu, 2016-01-28, Ian Collins wrote: > Mocking. > If you are testing class A which depends on class B you don't want the > definition of A an B in the same file. Do you always want to break that dependency during unit testing? E.g. if it's aggregation -- class A contains a B, or inherits from B. The way I see that situation, when I'm testing A as a black box, that aggregation is just part of A's implementation. If that sounds like a naive question, it's because I'm very unsure what people in general mean by "unit testing". I still don't see a consensus. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Jan 28 11:17PM On Thu, 2016-01-28, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: ... >>I agree with Scott. Being able to perform parallel or distributed >>builds is a big win for more smaller files. You don't need /that/ many files for that effect to kick in, though. Just enough to keep a handful of CPUs busy. It's hard IME to write C++ code so that that becomes a problem. (Although I don't know how that works when people use link-time optimization, more or less delaying compilation until the linking phase.) > A very valid point, if your tools support parallel builds. Are there any left that don't? GNU Make has done it for ages, and it's an obviously useful feature these days, when everybody has a bunch of mostly unused CPUs ... /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jan 28 02:53PM -0800 On Friday, 29 January 2016 00:07:17 UTC+2, 4ndre4 wrote: > The difference is that in the Obfuscated C contest, the code does > something in an incomprehensible way. My code does not really do > anything :) Oh it does. It leaks 3 stateless objects. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jan 28 02:35PM -0800 On Thursday, 28 January 2016 23:39:00 UTC+2, Lynn McGuire wrote: > > That has to be separate standard since "graphics" means few LEDs > > for lot of devices where C++ runs. > Not sure what you mean by "few LEDs" ? I meant that lot of equipment where C++ runs has only few "light emitting diodes" if any as end-user output. The standard IO may be is used during production of device thru UART ("universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter") or the like. As far I know the C++ standards committee does not like to specify language or library subsets and prefers the implementations to implement the whole language. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jan 28 02:50PM -0800 On Thursday, 28 January 2016 23:47:56 UTC+2, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > And if so, then it was probably done to verify that the proposal is > complete in a real-world sense, that it can actually be used for and is > sufficient for something non-trivial. Ok, seems logical. I still don't understand why Microsoft bought Nokia but purchase of Minecraft starts to make sense that way. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment