Help a C++ coder see the light

[Brandon Van Every]

Dave Brueck wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Brandon Van Every wrote:
>
>> Dave Brueck wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Mark Charsley wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm used to the compiler/linker giving me a lot of reassurance that
>>>> my code works.
>>>
>>> That's common, but in many cases it's a _false_ sense of
>>> reassurance.
>>
>> It kills many problems before they arise.
>
> Well, you didn't really elaborate so I can only guess what you meant,

That's ridiculous.  You jolly well know what I meant, you're just
pooh-poohing the engineering value of it.

> but I can't think of any real-world problems it finds that aren't
> caught just as adequately in the tests.

But I don't have to *write* the compiler typechecking.  I do have to write
the tests.  Anal retentive as I am, I don't have time to write *all* tests.

>>> Even in C++ I end up checking all uses of a refactored function
>>> despite what the compiler says because it can catch only the
>>> simplest of problems.
>>
>> Sounds like your functions must do an awful lot if they need so much
>> checking.
>
> Why do you say that?

I can't help you on how to engineer things properly and incrementally.  It's
way too big a discussion topic and requires specifics.

> It really depends on what the refactorization was, no?

Sure.  Don't make a mess out of it.  Refactoring is supposed to *simplify*
your life.

>> Maybe your functions should be smaller, more incremental, easier to
verify?
>
> You're kidding, right?

No.

--
Cheers,                         www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.