Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 3 topics

Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Aug 02 10:05AM +1200

On 02/08/18 09:32, David Brown wrote:
> my company. I don't like the restriction that the normal business
> license is for either Windows /or/ Linux - we use both, and would prefer
> a mixed license. But it may still be worth it.
 
It would be interesting seeing how it compares to other static analysis
tools for the same code. We are increasing our use of clang-tidy,
having used CppCheck for a couple of years. The latter is fast (at
least on Linux) but somewhat lacking in its analysis, the former slower
but way more thorough.
 
--
Ian.
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Aug 01 10:35PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> spake the secret code
>check makes sense, so the warning is not warranted. Maybe it's not so
>simple and maybe it would require a major redesign of the analyzer, but
>definitely it can be done.
 
If PVS Studio isn't yet supporting compile_commands.json for recording
this sort of thing (or scraping it out of the VS solution/project),
then that is a feature that is sorely needed.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Aug 01 03:19PM -0700

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:27:29 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> having a religious faith. There /is/ something wrong with mixing the
> two, and trying to force people to follow, or at least listen to, your
> personal brand of religion if they want to use your software.
 
People don't have to agree with my beliefs in order to use
the software. That would be your attempt to sway others
from using it.
 
> daft as being a fan of Star Wars and refusing to let people test your
> software before buying it on the basis that "There is no try. There is
> only do, or do not do."
 
It's free software. No need to buy anything.
 
> because he was disrupting the status quo for the poor white people who
> wanted to treat blacks as slaves so that they would not be at the bottom
> of the heap. His faith had precious little to do with his message.
 
"Free at last, free at last. Thank G-d almighty we are free
at last." MLK Jr.
 
 
> And (hopefully) for the last time, you are /not/ Martin Luther King,
> Noah, God's appointed leader of C++, or anything else special.
 
I claim to be part of the royal priesthood. See First Peter 2:9.
And everyone is special because they have been made in G-d's image.
 
 
> You are
> just a struggling programmer with an obsessive idea about how you think
> people want to get their code.
 
More like how I can make a living in increasingly
lawless times -- times similar to Noah.
 
> about online code generation is shared by only a tiny fraction of
> programmers, and start thinking about how you could make your system
> into downloadable software
 
You mean not an on-line service?
 
"Exponential growth in cloud services solutions"
https://www.networkworld.com/article/3233134/cloud-computing/5-cloud-computing-trends-to-prepare-for-in-2018.html
 
> didn't follow their particular brand of Christianity. They left because
> there was relative freedom of religion in England at the time, and they
> didn't like it.
 
Twisted views in my opinion. I guess Abe Lincoln was wrong
to celebrate Thanksgiving in your view.
 
 
> Online and cloud services certainly have their uses and their
> advantages. That does not mean that they are the best choice for
> everything.
 
Quality software is no accident. Those who deliver it deserve
to be rewarded. The cloud best protects investors and that's
one of the reasons it's growing.
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Aug 01 07:16PM

On Mon, 2018-07-09, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> value to a template ?
 
>>>>> I remember 15 y ago I found how to declare templates with compile time
>>>>> resolved fixed (but parametric) size arrays
 
...
 
 
>>std:array has no extra overhead.
 
> Personally, I'd rather see 'char zBuf[param];'. I see no benefit in
> another layer of abstraction over a native type.
 
It's perhaps the most error-prone native types, and std::array
addresses some of that -- it's not a useless layer.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)