First of all, sorry that I had to focus my activities onto other projects during the last weeks.
Second, I welcome Michael Feathers on Sourceforge,
and as you all might know, he is the original author of CppUnit.
Before applying all those patches sent in,
I'd like to discuss with you what direction the
development of cppunit should take.
Michael suggested to remove all fancy c++ features from CppUnit, since many of the developers still suffer from old c++ compilers.
For example, the namespace had to go then.
(But, aren't templates fancy c++ features, too?)
And as I realized, there are lots of problems with the registry.
So please send in your opinions and suggestions
(but don't forget to party this weekend),
Eric
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
by the way, there are people with rather severe criticism:
quote starts:
"I just wanted to thank you for this wonderfull product. Now my boss order me to add UnitCPP testing to every class in the project, even those that have been proven and are working fine. Yes, he is a stupid crazy guy as you might be. UniCpp is the worst thing I've ver seen in my life. People like you should be killed rightaway or at least get disconnected from the web, just to prevent other good programers fall into your stupid way of testing.
Thank you a lot. Merci. Gracias."
quote ends.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> Michael suggested to remove all fancy c++
> features from CppUnit, since many of the
> developers still suffer from old c++ compilers.
> For example, the namespace had to go then.
> (But, aren't templates fancy c++ features, too?)
YMMV, but I'd suggest that fewer people than you
might think suffer this way (given the ubiquity
of GCC and derived compilers).
I'd suggest a better path is to write the code
directly to the ISO C++ standard (14882) and
allow a "configure"-like tool to add in hacks to
work around specific problems. For example,
namespaces can be simulated with an outer
"class" declaration. I don't know of a good way
to work around the lack of templates though.
I'd hate to see this stuff "dumbed" down for the
majority of us with mostly standards-compliant
compilers.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'll second bwithrow's motion -- the whole point is to make writing tests painless. Having to avoid features of the language that my compiler supports means my project-mates and I are that much less likely to write the tests.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
My opinion : go forward with features that make a better package by using standard c++ features.
It's been a long time since the standard was published now, and namespace are pretty basic stuff if you ask me.
As for the registry, there is a way documented in the C++ ARM to ensure order of initialization is right. It doesn't work that well with dynamic libraries though.
mathieu
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I also encourage coding to the standard. At the very least it provides developers with yet another reason to ask their bosses to upgrade to modern tools. :)
I also encourage a name change from cpp to either cxx or cc. cpp is the c preprocessor.
Another priority should be getting the docs and the code in sync, and making the thing work out of the box. I attempted to get going with the last release but gave up when I realized how out of sync the docs were with the code, and had compile
problems out of the box.
There is a great need to be filled here, and I think this is a great start in filling it!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
First of all, sorry that I had to focus my activities onto other projects during the last weeks.
Second, I welcome Michael Feathers on Sourceforge,
and as you all might know, he is the original author of CppUnit.
Before applying all those patches sent in,
I'd like to discuss with you what direction the
development of cppunit should take.
Michael suggested to remove all fancy c++ features from CppUnit, since many of the developers still suffer from old c++ compilers.
For example, the namespace had to go then.
(But, aren't templates fancy c++ features, too?)
And as I realized, there are lots of problems with the registry.
So please send in your opinions and suggestions
(but don't forget to party this weekend),
Eric
by the way, there are people with rather severe criticism:
quote starts:
"I just wanted to thank you for this wonderfull product. Now my boss order me to add UnitCPP testing to every class in the project, even those that have been proven and are working fine. Yes, he is a stupid crazy guy as you might be. UniCpp is the worst thing I've ver seen in my life. People like you should be killed rightaway or at least get disconnected from the web, just to prevent other good programers fall into your stupid way of testing.
Thank you a lot. Merci. Gracias."
quote ends.
> or at least get disconnected from the web
Oh No! Not....that! Gasp!!! ;-)
Now there's an unbiased opinion. What a moron.
Ask him to tell the "UnitCpp" developers about his problems.
> Michael suggested to remove all fancy c++
> features from CppUnit, since many of the
> developers still suffer from old c++ compilers.
> For example, the namespace had to go then.
> (But, aren't templates fancy c++ features, too?)
YMMV, but I'd suggest that fewer people than you
might think suffer this way (given the ubiquity
of GCC and derived compilers).
I'd suggest a better path is to write the code
directly to the ISO C++ standard (14882) and
allow a "configure"-like tool to add in hacks to
work around specific problems. For example,
namespaces can be simulated with an outer
"class" declaration. I don't know of a good way
to work around the lack of templates though.
I'd hate to see this stuff "dumbed" down for the
majority of us with mostly standards-compliant
compilers.
I'll second bwithrow's motion -- the whole point is to make writing tests painless. Having to avoid features of the language that my compiler supports means my project-mates and I are that much less likely to write the tests.
My opinion : go forward with features that make a better package by using standard c++ features.
It's been a long time since the standard was published now, and namespace are pretty basic stuff if you ask me.
As for the registry, there is a way documented in the C++ ARM to ensure order of initialization is right. It doesn't work that well with dynamic libraries though.
mathieu
I also encourage coding to the standard. At the very least it provides developers with yet another reason to ask their bosses to upgrade to modern tools. :)
I also encourage a name change from cpp to either cxx or cc. cpp is the c preprocessor.
Another priority should be getting the docs and the code in sync, and making the thing work out of the box. I attempted to get going with the last release but gave up when I realized how out of sync the docs were with the code, and had compile
problems out of the box.
There is a great need to be filled here, and I think this is a great start in filling it!