Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
25.02.2014 16:48, Dicebot пишет: On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 11:20:37 UTC, bearophile wrote: Currently the D compiler catches several bugs that are caught only by C lints. Clang shows that you can add lot of lint-like tests to the compiler. I'd like some more tests in the D compiler. Full stop. It should be other way around - remove all such arguable warnings from compiler to dedicated lint tool and never add any single one to compiler. I'd say a good static code analysis require a full compiler frontend and I see no reasons why there can't be such thing in dmd as it is just as required as profiler, unittesting or documentation generation which are already in. Of course it has nothing to do with compiler warnings and is a separate thing. But looks like people aren't interested in it as enhancement request 9811 [1] still has no votes or discussion. [1] https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9811 -- Денис В. Шеломовский Denis V. Shelomovskij
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Sunday, 2 March 2014 at 12:29:15 UTC, Denis Shelomovskij wrote: I'd say a good static code analysis require a full compiler frontend and I see no reasons why there can't be such thing in dmd as it is just as required as profiler, unittesting or documentation generation which are already in. Of course it has nothing to do with compiler warnings and is a separate thing. But looks like people aren't interested in it as enhancement request 9811 [1] still has no votes or discussion. I think built-in profile and documentation is also inferior to having those as separate binaries but distributing together with compiler and being callable from it. Unit test are different because those are much more integrated with language itself. Compiler as a (dynamic) library is the way to go.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 3/2/2014 7:35 AM, Dicebot wrote: On Sunday, 2 March 2014 at 12:29:15 UTC, Denis Shelomovskij wrote: I'd say a good static code analysis require a full compiler frontend and I see no reasons why there can't be such thing in dmd as it is just as required as profiler, unittesting or documentation generation which are already in. Of course it has nothing to do with compiler warnings and is a separate thing. But looks like people aren't interested in it as enhancement request 9811 [1] still has no votes or discussion. I think built-in profile and documentation is also inferior to having those as separate binaries but distributing together with compiler and being callable from it. Unit test are different because those are much more integrated with language itself. Personally, I've never really understood the benefit one way or another of related tools being in one binary vs multiple binaries. As I see it, the important thing is that all relevant *source* is well-encapsulated. Unless you're on a system where kilobytes matter (ie, if you're in a time warp), anything else just comes down to a matter of: git clone url dmd -profile src.d vs git-clone url dmd-profile src.d Compiler as a (dynamic) library is the way to go. Definitely!
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Sunday, 2 March 2014 at 21:41:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Personally, I've never really understood the benefit one way or another of related tools being in one binary vs multiple binaries. As I see it, the important thing is that all relevant *source* is well-encapsulated. Unless you're on a system where kilobytes matter (ie, if you're in a time warp), anything else just comes down to a matter of: ... Main difference that matters is separation of the code base that makes maintenance of each tool independent from compiler core and thus easier. This also propagates to separation of CLI flags and configuration files and so on, allowing for more combined interface complexity. git CLI is designed hierarchically so passing all those parameters is obvious. This can't be done for dmd without changing it CLI completely or introducing some weird hacks.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/28/14, 3:19 PM, Ivan Kazmenko wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:07:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7293396 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ The relevant link on D_Programming twitter (https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/438089226685399040) points to www.facebook.com/... instead of code.facebook.com/... and thus gives error 404. Thanks, sent a correx. Andrei
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:07:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7293396 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ The relevant link on D_Programming twitter (https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/438089226685399040) points to www.facebook.com/... instead of code.facebook.com/... and thus gives error 404.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ Somewhere in that thread was a mention of facebook moving away from git because it was too slow. I thought it was interesting and found this info on the topic ... They rewrote some sections of Mercurial to make it scale better, and got it working faster than git in their environment. https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-mercurial-at-facebook/
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:48:17 Dicebot wrote: On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 11:20:37 UTC, bearophile wrote: Currently the D compiler catches several bugs that are caught only by C lints. Clang shows that you can add lot of lint-like tests to the compiler. I'd like some more tests in the D compiler. Full stop. It should be other way around - remove all such arguable warnings from compiler to dedicated lint tool and never add any single one to compiler. +1 - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 02/25/2014 06:53 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/25/2014 3:40 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Ironically that's for the obsoleted C++ program. The D program is trivial to build. Maybe the C++ version should undergo a git rm :-) Or at least, put it on another branch. +1
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Daniel Murphy: D language has similar rules, but I don't rember if the D compiler warns against usage of similar identifiers. It doesn't! Perhaps it should? [snip etc] The D compiler is not a lint tool! Currently the D compiler catches several bugs that are caught only by C lints. Clang shows that you can add lot of lint-like tests to the compiler. I'd like some more tests in the D compiler. Bye, bearophile
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Andrei Alexandrescu: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ An interesting comment from Reddit: klusarkI've been trying to build this for the past hour. It requires folly. folly requires some double-conversion library, but you can't use the default version, you have to build it with scripts from folly's source. After I finally get folly to get past configure stage I get some random python error in one of the build scripts. I just gave up at this point. I'm sure I could get it working, but the time isn't worth it. Bye, bearophile
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
bearophile wrote in message news:bskrlqgtwkqdyoqwk...@forum.dlang.org... D language has similar rules, but I don't rember if the D compiler warns against usage of similar identifiers. It doesn't! [snip etc] The D compiler is not a lint tool!
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Dicebot: It should be other way around - remove all such arguable warnings from compiler to dedicated lint tool and never add any single one to compiler. What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing as you say? Bye, bearophile
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 11:20:37 UTC, bearophile wrote: Currently the D compiler catches several bugs that are caught only by C lints. Clang shows that you can add lot of lint-like tests to the compiler. I'd like some more tests in the D compiler. Full stop. It should be other way around - remove all such arguable warnings from compiler to dedicated lint tool and never add any single one to compiler.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:58:03 UTC, bearophile wrote: Dicebot: It should be other way around - remove all such arguable warnings from compiler to dedicated lint tool and never add any single one to compiler. What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing as you say? Bye, bearophile Disadvantages: 1) need to distribute extra tool 2) need to keep it in sync with language Advantages: 1) can't affect compilation semantics (__traits(compiles) + dmd -w) 2) allows defining project-specific rule set 3) becomes possible to define exceptions from general rules without affecting language 4) makes it possible to add lot of different checks without endless arguments about their applicability for all programs
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 11:22:23 UTC, bearophile wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ An interesting comment from Reddit: klusarkI've been trying to build this for the past hour. It requires folly. folly requires some double-conversion library, but you can't use the default version, you have to build it with scripts from folly's source. After I finally get folly to get past configure stage I get some random python error in one of the build scripts. I just gave up at this point. I'm sure I could get it working, but the time isn't worth it. Bye, bearophile It's kind of strange (to say the least) that a D project depends on folly and gtest - the C++ libraries. I understand that flint is not purely a D project. It also builds the C++ binary and library which depends on this stuff. But I find it important to separate the 2. And the D version should be made as easy to setup as possible. That is - no friggin autotools, makefiles and folly/boost/gtest dependencies. I honestly think that this stuff stands in the way of the D's adoption big time. And this flint project should really be separated into C++ and D part. With D part using unittests, phobos and dub. So using it would be as simple as dub build and dub test. The difference would be even more noticeable with a neighbor C++ project requiring all that autotools nonsense. Being a C++ developer for a decade now, personally, I can handle the D adoption curve since in its current state it's not worse than C++'s anyway. But every time I feel really awkward recommending D to someone else. Since I know they will encounter many problems which require arcane (to newcomer's mind) knowledge. Maybe another valuable example would be a go fix alternative. After every release I hear the voices It broke every line of my code, This release is a behemoth, D was never and will never be stable, etc. And I really think that if it could be handled by dub fix - nobody would ever complain. At DConf 2013 Andrei told to that question something like - What do you actually want? A bash script in the error message to fix that for a whole project? Well, I guess this could be done. So, to summarize, I guess my point is, that today's tools work so smooth and with such low entering cost, that an old-dog-C++-programmer considers it magic and doesn't really value it accordingly. And since the D crowd is mostly the old-dog-C++-programmers crowd - this aspect is really underlooked. But the (sad or great or mere) fact is that today's students are not old-dog-C++-programmers and they have really hard time using D today. So hard, that they would actually rather use Python or Go (oh, my) or Haskell (sic!) instead of D in their work.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
I'd like to point out a cool fact: with D, we can do a number of lint like things in the language itself, especially if we extend rtinfo (I wrote about this a little while ago and might do a pull request soon) checkBlacklistedIdentifiers -- would require modifying the header but we could @disable them checkOSSIncludes - scan for imports, would be easier with rtinfo for modules though! but worst case i'm pretty sure we could do this as a runtime unit test with moduleinfo Eliminate common mistakes, checkImplicitCast - a UDA + RTInfo + compile time reflection means this is checked by D well a lot of these are obviated by D itself too... but checking reflection, especially with a project-wide rtinfo extension so you don't have to static assert in every module, gives D the potential to lint itself with some user-defined semantics.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Dicebot wrote in message news:rkgevwccvxaynrbbi...@forum.dlang.org... Full stop. It should be other way around - remove all such arguable warnings from compiler to dedicated lint tool and never add any single one to compiler. Exactly. This sort of thing would make an excellent compiler plugin...
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Am 25.02.2014 13:48, schrieb Dicebot: On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 11:20:37 UTC, bearophile wrote: Currently the D compiler catches several bugs that are caught only by C lints. Clang shows that you can add lot of lint-like tests to the compiler. I'd like some more tests in the D compiler. Full stop. It should be other way around - remove all such arguable warnings from compiler to dedicated lint tool and never add any single one to compiler. Yeah, it worked really great for C. Developers created C compilers in other systems and never ported lint as part of the process. End result being a portable macro assembler, as safe as, writing in pure assembly. -- Paulo
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
You don't need to port lints to use them.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Paulo Pinto: End result being a portable macro assembler, as safe as, writing in pure assembly. I'd even like warnings active on default in D, plus a compiler switch to disable them. Lot of people in D.learn don't even activate warnings. Bye, bearophile
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 15:43:30 UTC, bearophile wrote: I'd even like warnings active on default in D, plus a compiler switch to disable them. Lot of people in D.learn don't even activate warnings. Those warning that _can_ be activated by default, should be just turned into errors. Same crap as with C.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Am 25.02.2014 16:49, schrieb Dicebot: On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 15:43:30 UTC, bearophile wrote: I'd even like warnings active on default in D, plus a compiler switch to disable them. Lot of people in D.learn don't even activate warnings. Those warning that _can_ be activated by default, should be just turned into errors. Same crap as with C. There I agree. Actually a good approach the Go guys have, everything that can be a warning, is an error.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Dicebot: Those warning that _can_ be activated by default, should be just turned into errors. Same crap as with C. Programming is not a black/white thing (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Manichaean#Adjective ) :-) Bye, bearophile
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 16:07:34 UTC, bearophile wrote: Programming is not a black/white thing (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Manichaean#Adjective ) :-) Which is exactly why you can't put this stuff into compiler - providing comparable amount of cofigurability as expected from dedicated lint tool will considerably complicate it. And sticking no non-configurable defaults is akin to -Werror in C: either you enable it and pollute your code with hacks to prevent triggerring of warnings in rare legit cases or just ignore for most time.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:58:03 UTC, bearophile wrote: Dicebot: It should be other way around - remove all such arguable warnings from compiler to dedicated lint tool and never add any single one to compiler. What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing as you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/25/14, 3:07 PM, deadalnix wrote: On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:58:03 UTC, bearophile wrote: Dicebot: It should be other way around - remove all such arguable warnings from compiler to dedicated lint tool and never add any single one to compiler. What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing as you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns Yes, it can be a separate module in the source code of the compiler. The compiler is the only one that has most information to provide lint errors. If the lint has tests, if you change the compiler you immediately can tell if the linter stopped working correctly or needs an update. If it's separated then it's always the turtle chasing the rabbit.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 18:34:49 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote: Yes, it can be a separate module in the source code of the compiler. The compiler is the only one that has most information to provide lint errors. If the lint has tests, if you change the compiler you immediately can tell if the linter stopped working correctly or needs an update. If it's separated then it's always the turtle chasing the rabbit. Ideally, you'd provide semantic analysis as a library, and use it in the compiler AND in the linter. That is even more separation of concerns, and that works well.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/25/2014 6:53 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: well a lot of these are obviated by D itself too... but checking reflection, especially with a project-wide rtinfo extension so you don't have to static assert in every module, gives D the potential to lint itself with some user-defined semantics. This is a most interesting idea. Please pursue.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/25/2014 10:34 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote: If it's separated then it's always the turtle chasing the rabbit. I like Adam's idea of improving reflection so such linters could be written as D code and compiled in.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Am 25.02.2014 20:36, schrieb Walter Bright: On 2/25/2014 10:34 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote: If it's separated then it's always the turtle chasing the rabbit. I like Adam's idea of improving reflection so such linters could be written as D code and compiled in. Yes, other languages are starting to offer such capabilities via compiler plugins. Could be something interesting. -- Paulo
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/25/2014 12:54 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Am 25.02.2014 20:36, schrieb Walter Bright: On 2/25/2014 10:34 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote: If it's separated then it's always the turtle chasing the rabbit. I like Adam's idea of improving reflection so such linters could be written as D code and compiled in. Yes, other languages are starting to offer such capabilities via compiler plugins. Could be something interesting. I don't mean as a compiler plugin.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/25/2014 7:36 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Yeah, it worked really great for C. Developers created C compilers in other systems and never ported lint as part of the process. End result being a portable macro assembler, as safe as, writing in pure assembly. This is hyperbole. C's type system made it far safer than assembler.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Actually a good approach the Go guys have, everything that can be a warning, is an error. D started with and maintained that approach for many years. It was a position I strongly advocated.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 22:42:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Actually a good approach the Go guys have, everything that can be a warning, is an error. D started with and maintained that approach for many years. It was a position I strongly advocated. To be completely honest, at the moment warning lobby has happened it was more reasonable because there was not even slight possibility of lint-like tool creation back then. But now we have DScanner and DDMD is not that far away too which allows for more purism in this question.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/25/2014 2:47 PM, Dicebot wrote: To be completely honest, I should hope so :-) at the moment warning lobby has happened it was more reasonable because there was not even slight possibility of lint-like tool creation back then. But now we have DScanner and DDMD is not that far away too which allows for more purism in this question. I tend to agree. The existence of warnings in the compiler is a red flag that the language design needs work. But I still support the existence of warnings in the compiler as a means to ease transitioning away from obsolete features.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/25/14, 3:22 AM, bearophile wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ An interesting comment from Reddit: klusarkI've been trying to build this for the past hour. It requires folly. folly requires some double-conversion library, but you can't use the default version, you have to build it with scripts from folly's source. After I finally get folly to get past configure stage I get some random python error in one of the build scripts. I just gave up at this point. I'm sure I could get it working, but the time isn't worth it. Bye, bearophile Ironically that's for the obsoleted C++ program. The D program is trivial to build. Andrei
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/24/14, 4:46 PM, bachmeier wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:07:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: This is a first on so many levels. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7293396 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ Andrei Is your job title really D Language Evangelist? On paper it's Research Scientist. But we are really allowed to describe our jobs any way we want. Andrei
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Andrei Alexandrescu: Ironically that's for the obsoleted C++ program. The D program is trivial to build. Oh, I didn't know/understand that. Sorry for the noise. Bye, bearophile
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On 2/25/2014 3:40 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Ironically that's for the obsoleted C++ program. The D program is trivial to build. Maybe the C++ version should undergo a git rm :-) Or at least, put it on another branch.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 23:40:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 2/25/14, 3:22 AM, bearophile wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ An interesting comment from Reddit: klusarkI've been trying to build this for the past hour. It requires folly. folly requires some double-conversion library, but you can't use the default version, you have to build it with scripts from folly's source. After I finally get folly to get past configure stage I get some random python error in one of the build scripts. I just gave up at this point. I'm sure I could get it working, but the time isn't worth it. Bye, bearophile Ironically that's for the obsoleted C++ program. The D program is trivial to build. Andrei Somewhat related, what ideas in Folly do you think we should borrow for Phobos? It seems like there is a lot of nice stuff in there: https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/master/folly/docs/Overview.md
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 00:46:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:07:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: This is a first on so many levels. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7293396 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ Andrei Is your job title really D Language Evangelist? Usually, I understand XXX evangelist as My job is to use twitter.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 19:37:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
This is a most interesting idea. Please pursue.
I talked about it a little while ago in a thread on the forum
(it was also my dconf submission but since I don't really want to
travel anyway that surely won't happen).
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/majnjuhxdefjuqjlp...@forum.dlang.org
The basic thing is to change object.d's RTInfo template to import
an empty module and mixin a name. Projects would be able to
override it by just writing their own module with the same name
instead. Then, the compiler goes looking and prefers the user's
one from the one in druntime.
It's doable right now, but we could improve it by adding an
rtinfo like thing for modules too, or maybe even functions.
Some related bugzillas to rtinfo:
add it for modules too:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10023
some bugs:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10442
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10786
add it for built-in types too (not strictly necessary here)
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11670
I would *love* to have access to the call stack and local
variables too, then we can do custom things a la @safe in the lib
too. But I think we can go one step at a time, checking user
structs and classes is possible today and gives some good
possibilities.
Among the things I've done in my proof of concept:
rtinfo.d:
module core.rtinfo;
mixin template ProjectRtInfo(T) {
import lint.virtuals;
static assert(virtualCheck!T);
}
test.d:
import lint.virtuals;
class Foo {
void foo() {}
}
$ dmd test53 virtuals.d rtinfo.d
Warning Foo.foo is virtual
test.d:
import lint.virtuals;
class Foo {
@virtual void foo() {}
}
$ dmd test53 virtuals.d rtinfo.d
# works!
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 23:40:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 2/25/14, 3:22 AM, bearophile wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ An interesting comment from Reddit: klusarkI've been trying to build this for the past hour. It requires folly. folly requires some double-conversion library, but you can't use the default version, you have to build it with scripts from folly's source. After I finally get folly to get past configure stage I get some random python error in one of the build scripts. I just gave up at this point. I'm sure I could get it working, but the time isn't worth it. Bye, bearophile Ironically that's for the obsoleted C++ program. The D program is trivial to build. Andrei You should make that clearer in the README
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 00:57:55 UTC, deadalnix wrote: Usually, I understand XXX evangelist as My job is to use twitter. Oh, so _that's_ why the text of the Bible comes in individual numbered verses of less than 140 characters each!
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 01:47:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I like throwErrno and friends a lot. What's that? git grep over folly's repo comes up with 0 results. Is this like our cenforce? (I think it should be made public.)
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 22:37:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/25/2014 7:36 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: Yeah, it worked really great for C. Developers created C compilers in other systems and never ported lint as part of the process. End result being a portable macro assembler, as safe as, writing in pure assembly. This is hyperbole. C's type system made it far safer than assembler. Of course you are right about it, but that is how I personally look to C, given my experience with Turbo Pascal, Modula-2 and Oberon for the same purposes. -- Paulo
Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
This is a first on so many levels. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7293396 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ Andrei
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:06:29 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: This is a first on so many levels. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7293396 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/ facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ Andrei The real first is that I managed to comment on your reddit within two minutes of submission.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:07:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: This is a first on so many levels. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7293396 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ Andrei Congratulations! This is great news. D is sure to get tons of exposure from this, and it proves how D is useful for real world work.
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
Andrei Alexandrescu:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/
3. Reserved identifiers (checkDefinedNames). A C and C++ naming
rule that often gets forgotten is that all identifiers starting
with an underscore followed by an uppercase letter, plus all
identifiers containing two consecutive underscores, are reserved
by the implementation. (Of course there are exceptions to the
rule in our code, such as _GNU_SOURCE or _XOPEN_SOURCE, which is
why flint keeps aside a whitelist while checking for reserved
identifier patterns.)
D language has similar rules, but I don't rember if the D
compiler warns against usage of similar identifiers.
8. Initializing a variable from itself
(checkInitializeFromItself). We found that people wrote
constructors like:
class X {
...
int a_;
X(const X rhs) : a_(a_) {}
X(int a) : a_(a_) {}
};
The intent was to use a_(rhs.a_) in the first constructor and
a_(a) in the second. That hardly ever helps, and the compiler
keeps mum about it. We like to say, There's a flint rule for
that, in order to resolve the problem.
I'd like a similar warning in the D compiler for a similar (very)
common bug:
class Foo {
int x;
this(int x_) { this.x = x; }
}
void main() {}
16. Check against throwing new-allocated bald pointers
(checkThrowsHeapException). This eliminates the throw new T
anti-pattern.
I don't fully understand this.
The throw new Exception(...) pattern in D was recently
discussed, and sometimes re-using an Exception is more efficient.
20. Pass cheap types by value (checkFollyStringPieceByValue).
Certain user-defined types, such as iterators or pair of
iterators, are small and cheap to copy so it's virtually always
better to pass them by value instead of the conservative
reference to const. Folly's StringPiece is an example - it
occupies two words and has raw copy semantics.
In D there is about the same problem.
Additionally the D compiler doesn't warn if you do kind of the
opposite:
alias MyArr = int[5000];
void foo(MyArr x) {}
void main() {}
Bye,
bearophile
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:07:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: This is a first on so many levels. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7293396 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ Andrei Awesomeness. Look forward to learning from its style. Thanks Joseph
Re: Facebook open sources flint, a C++ linter written in D
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:07:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: This is a first on so many levels. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7293396 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1yts5n/facebook_open_sources_flint_a_c_linter_written_in/ Andrei Is your job title really D Language Evangelist?
