|
It happens ... so where is today's?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, sorry, I assumed it was yours after getting musefan's yesterday - will think of one quickly.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Provide egghead with witticism (5)
|
|
|
|
|
Provide
egghead E
with
witticism QUIP
EQUIP
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
ya 
|
|
|
|
|
What to do when leaving the company? Toss a few noisemakers as you exit: Speaking Truth to Power: Reflections on My Career at Microsoft[^]
I have to say that I knew a few people like he mentions. And I’m sure any of them are still there, probably with ‘ Senior’ or ‘principal’ in front of their title.
As many would guess, I also agree with a lot of his points on the Windows team 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
"Quote: At its core, Microsoft is a company that makes its money the old fashioned way: by creating products of value that people willingly part with their money to use. They stand as a bulwark against the data mongering and user exploitation that Google and Facebook see as the future of humanity.
Never really thought much about it, but very true.
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
nice whitewash apparently you never used windows 10.....
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
Who hasn't...
I not say Microsoft is perfect, but at least they're not as morally bankrupt as companies likes of Farcebook, google, VW etc
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
Really?! Or maybe just late for the party?
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
RossMW wrote: Who hasn't...
One more of the 'don't we all' things where I must say that 'we' don't all do it.
RossMW wrote: at least they're not as morally bankrupt as companies likes of Farcebook, google, VW
They do their best, but have not figured out a way to catch up without looking like total dicks.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Reading this, I wondered what the author was smoking:Quote: This brings us to the present epoch under Satya Nadella who, against the odds, has revived the company’s mojo and returned it to prominence. He has accomplished this by abandoning the strategies of both his forebears. Microsoft is no longer a technology-forward or a sales-forward company.
Reading this, I know what the author is smoking:Quote: He warns Microsoft away from its “fixed mindset” and has hired a revolving door of consultants and evangelists (including a three-year stint as cultural attaché by yours truly) to help transition the company into a “growth mindset.”
While the author hears echoes of "ka-ching, ka ching," I hear the ghosts of Nokia, SilverLight, Modern UI, Clippy, WPF, the mutilated Skype, Vista, and other titanic debacles, laughing; why are they laughing ? Because they find the screams of developers throw under the bus hilarious 
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
So, since code analysis is included in Visual Studio these days, I figured I'd give it a try. It kicks out endless errors and warngings, every single one of which so far is either wrong or I would have to write far worse code just to make it understandable to the analysis tool in order to make it shut up.
The biggest single one so far is that it doesn't recognize that I'm doing a null check or some other check and calling a method that will throw the right exception or that I'm using an assert. I'm not template crazy like most folks these days, but my collections and various other things are templated. I try to keep as much code out of line as possible, and things like throwing exceptions are one of those. But that means it complains about every single place where that happens because it doesn't understand I'm dealing with the problem already.
Given that this already causes many hundreds of issues in headers that will be seen basically everywhere directly or indirectly, and I'm not about to hack my code up with hundreds of suppressions before I even really get started, that pretty much makes it useless for me.
When you write code to work around lackings in the code analyzer, and make your code more complex and less readable just to make it shut up, that's really letting the tail wag the dog. As I understand it, this is hardly specific to the VS analyzer either.
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
I was also disappointed with it. It did find a few things, but I had to disable various errors and warnings just to find them amongst all its drool. It was a while ago that I used it, but I seem to recall that it was obsessed with using smart pointers and tagging functions noexcept. I think it's a plug-in that Microsoft took from a third party. In any case, I'd already written one[^], though it only understands the subset of C++ that I use.
|
|
|
|
|
And, even worse, if you are writing a large, multi-platform system, where different compilers/tools are going to be used, and they will all have their own error/warning codes, it will just be a mess. Creating a macro to hide the suppression mechanism won't help with the error codes.
I guess you could say that only one platform will get code analysis but that doesn't seen practical.
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
Dean Roddey wrote: multi-platform system, where different compilers/tools are going to be used
That's exactly the situation I'm in (building for Linux with gcc, Windows with MSVC 2017 - and thanks to WSL, I can do them both from the same session - yay for progress!). I'm using clang-tidy for static analysis and finding it pretty painless. I have it set to run every time I build for Linux build, with only warnings I'm interested in and it's OK. Combined with gcc sanitisers (turned on for debug builds and unit tests), I feel happier that my code's safer than it might otherwise be.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
I wholeheartedly agree with that! 
|
|
|
|
|
Well yes, but also no.
I'm now doing a VB.NET WinForms project.
I get naming conventions and that we should be using PascalCasing for methods.
But controls are still often named "btnSave" or "txtName", and the VS default for events is btnSave_Click.
ERROR! btnSave_Click is not according to conventions (then again, nothing in this project is).
Even if I named it SaveButton, VS still generates the _ and I'm not going to change that kind of generated code.
The original developer didn't care one bit about conventions and had code as follows (comments added here by me):
Public Class someClass
Dim SomeVar
Dim _anothervar As Entities
Private yetanothervar As Int32 = "0"
Dim theListGoesOn As IntegerI don't know how many rules this breaks and the lack of consistency is alarming (and I wish I was overdoing it here, but I don't).
The code analyzer did help me to clean things up though.
Another thing the analyzer doesn't get is that a shown form should NOT be disposed!
Doing so will immediately close the form, learned that the hard way some years back 
So while I was able to resolve literally 100's of possible bugs and inconsistencies it also leaves me with 100's that I cannot or will not fix!
It's a double edged blade
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: ERROR! btnSave_Click is not according to conventions
On the plus side, anyone reading the code knows immediately that the function is an event handler, which control it's for, and what event it handles.
|
|
|
|
|
I just did an analysis on a piece of WPF code I wrote recently (which runs fine, BTW), and it found two variables that weren't used (which I had already pragama'd around, and seven instances of CA2214 (Do not call overridable methods in constructors), which involved having forms derived from a base form class that implemented INotifyPropertyChanged. I'm not changing my code...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I have a big codebase and think CA helps a lot! If you don't like the default rules set - make your own or customize it. I normally would go for local supressions directly on the code in Question - but for your case a global supression could do (or in Project-Settings). I think it's not OK to say the CA "sucks" - if you have special needs customize it - you can, and it's not difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
A global suppression of fundamental checks would do no good. Then I would never see any actual legitimate problems of that type, which would make it not worth doing to begin with.
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
If you are coding in C++, perhaps you should really examine you code, for example, using assert -- you might want to use the Google Test Framework and use their ASSERT_ macros along with gMock so you don't have to pollute your code with something that is normally reserved for debugging and not for a release version. I am wondering if you are a "C-style" developer, which might be causing some of your angst.![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm... No. I've been a hard core C++ developer for 30+ years and have a 1.1M line personal code base. So it's safe to say I'm not a C style developer. I have my own test framework and my own asserts my own standard library and my own everything, so none of that would be applicable to me. My asserts are appropriately used for things that would represent coding errors, not input errors (obviously no one is 100% consistent in such a large code base.) And of course I can choose to have them on in release if I want, or have separate ones for release vs. debug.
GitHub - DeanRoddey/CIDLib: The CIDLib general purpose C++ development environment[^]
The issue is writing less readable and maintainable code just to make the analyzer happy. That is likely to cause more problems than the few things it actually manages to catch.
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
You mentioned having your own "standard library", perhaps you have some conflicts that can be resolved using namespaces?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
