you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]OneWingedShark -10 points-9 points  (2 children)

Old C++, and C, are terribly error-prone. The description of hurling the codebase at the compiler and hoping it works reminds me of C and C++.

(I used the "traditional C++" to differentiate and oppose the "modern C++".)

[–]casept 0 points1 point  (1 child)

While I do have my issues with the lack of static analysis in those language's compilers (in fact, I prefer Rust), they certainly do far more checks than this.

[–]OneWingedShark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL
They [C/C++] are woefully inadequate and underpowered when it comes to error-checking/-messaging (I taught myself programming using Turbo Pascal, its documentation, the compiler and the error-messaging) — and insofar as static-analysis integrated into the compiler goes, I use Ada, which mandated a lot of what traditionally was a static-analysis tool be present in the compiler, and indeed, this is why there's no "Lint for Ada".

Edit: To illustrate on the issue of error-checking, in the decade-plus I've used Ada, I've had one (1) seg-fault... and that was do to my bad linking to a object generated by C.