From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [9fans] Good enough approximation for ape/pcc From: Andy Newman To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: <6.0.2.0.0.20060411100415.01cb6490@pop.monitorbm.co.nz> References: <229aaef51090aa24504f7f55d106b8c2@quanstro.net> <6.0.2.0.0.20060411100415.01cb6490@pop.monitorbm.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:04:55 +1000 Message-Id: <200604102304.k3AN4vJN003576@haides.silverbrookresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 345728ea-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 10:07 +1200, Andrew Simmons wrote: > I was recently told about the following compiler option. I honestly thought > it was an April Fool's joke: > > -Weffc++ The "joke" is more that to use the language safely/correctly pretty much requires such an option. There is a mini-industry of "don't do that" books as the g++ switch shows. Having now done a lot of C++ I find it quite unbelievable what people will put up with and claim to be good (but hey they pay me for it). Although C++ does provide a few niceties it creates a whole slew of problems of its own which need to be fixed with all manner of convoluted constructs and practices. Don't get me started on the library, they're only now figuring out that it mostly sucks.