On Wednesday, 5 August 2015 at 04:10:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 22:42:50 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 20:47:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[...]
What do you dislike about C++ coverage tooling in comparison
with D's?
To get code coverage in C++, I'd have to go track down a tool
to do it. There is none which is used as part of our normal
build process at work. As it is, we only have unit tests
because I went and added what was needed to write them and have
been writing them. No one else has been writing them, and if I
want any kind of code coverage stuff set up, I'd have to go
spend the time to figure it out. With D, it's all built-in, and
I don't have to figure out which tools to use or write any of
them myself - either for unit testing or code coverage. They're
just there and ready to go.
- Jonathan M Davis
This is nonsense, what major C++ compiler doesn't provide code
coverage?
I feel like 99% of C++ vs D arguments on this forum are comparing
C++98 to D.
