←back to thread

327 points AareyBaba | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.01s | source | bottom
Show context
time4tea ◴[] No.46184345[source]
a = a; // misra

Actual code i have seen with my own eyes. (Not in F-35 code)

Its a way to avoid removing an unused parameter from a method. Unused parameters are disallowed, but this is fine?

I am sceptical that these coding standards make for good code!

replies(11): >>46184442 #>>46184460 #>>46184571 #>>46185232 #>>46185373 #>>46186276 #>>46186377 #>>46186457 #>>46186510 #>>46186705 #>>46189488 #
tialaramex ◴[] No.46185373[source]
Studies have looked at MISRA, I'm not aware of any for the JSF guidelines. For MISRA there's a mix, some of the rules seem to be effective (fewer defects in compliant software), some are the opposite (code which obeys these rules is more likely to have defects) and some were irrelevant.

Notably this document is from 2005. So that's after C++ was standardized but before their second bite of that particular cherry and twenty years before its author, Bjarne Stroustrup suddenly decides after years of insisting that C++ dialects are a terrible idea and will never be endorsed by the language committee, that in fact dialects (now named "profiles") are the magic ingredient to fix the festering problems with the language.

While Laurie's video is fun, I too am sceptical about the value of style guides, which is what these are. "TABS shall be avoided" or "Letters in function names shall be lowercase" isn't because somebody's aeroplane fell out of the sky - it's due to using a style Bjarne doesn't like.

replies(3): >>46185961 #>>46186729 #>>46190376 #
1. writtiewrat ◴[] No.46185961[source]
[flagged]
replies(2): >>46186906 #>>46188499 #
2. tialaramex ◴[] No.46186906[source]
"No semantic effect" is one of those recurring C++ tropes like the "subset of a superset" or "trading performance for safety" that I think even its defenders ought to call bullshit on. The insistence on "No semantic effect" for attributes has poisoned them badly, and the choice to just ignore the semantic implications for Bjarne's C++ 20 Concepts makes this a poor substitute for the concepts feature as once imagined at the start of the century.

I doubt I can satisfy you as to whether I'm somehow a paid evangelist, I remember I got a free meal once for contributing to the OSM project, and I bet if I dig further I can find some other occasion that, if you spin it hard enough can be justified as "payment" for my opinion that Rust is a good language. There was a nice lady giving our free cookies at the anti-racist counter-protests the other week, maybe she once met a guy who worked for an outfit which was contracted to print a Rust book? I sense you may own a corkboard and a lot of red string.

replies(1): >>46188320 #
3. vlovich123 ◴[] No.46188320[source]
But what’s the relevance of all of this to bird law?
4. tomhow ◴[] No.46188499[source]
We've banned this account for continual guidelines breaches across multiple accounts.
replies(1): >>46189401 #
5. menaerus ◴[] No.46189401[source]
You do realize that there's a handful of literally the same people here on HN continuously evangelizing one technology by constantly dissing on the other? Because of the pervasiveness of such accounts/comments it invites other people, myself included, to counter-argue because most of the time the reality they're trying to portray is misrepresented or many times simply wrong. This is harmful and obviously invites for a flame war so how is that not by the same principle you applied to above account a guideline breach too?
replies(1): >>46190836 #
6. tomhow ◴[] No.46190836{3}[source]
We act on what we see, and we see what people make us aware of via flags and emails.

Comments like yours are difficult because they’re not actionable or able to be responded to in a way you’ll find satisfying if you don’t link to the comments that you mean.

Programming language flamewars have always been lame on HN and we have no problem taking action against perpetrators when we’re alerted to them.