Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
While C++ Standards Committee works hard to define its intricate but powerful features and maintain its backward compatibility with C, in my personal experience I've found many aspects of programming with C++ cumbersome due to lack of tools.
For example, I recently tried to refactor some C++ code, replacing many shared_ptr by T& to remove pointer usages where not needed within a large library. I had to perform almost the whole refactoring manually as none of the refactoring tools out there would help me do this safely.
Dealing with STL data structures using the debugger is like raking out the phone number of a stranger when she disagrees.
In your experience, what essential developer tools are lacking in C++?
My dream tool would be a compile-time template debugger. Something that'd let me interactively step through template instantiations and examine the types as they get instantiated, just like the regular debugger does at runtime.
In your experience, what essential developer tools are lacking in C++?
Code completion. Seriously. Refactoring is a nice-to-have feature but I think code completion is much more fundamental and more important for API discoverabilty and usabilty.
Basically, tools that require any undestanding of C++ code suck.
Code generation of class methods. When I type in the declaration you should be able to figure out the definition. And while I'm on the topic can we fix "goto declaration / goto definition" always going to the declaration?
Refactoring. Yes I know it's formally impossible because of the pre-processor - but the compiler could still do a better job of a search and replace on a variable name than I can maually. You could also syntax highlight local, members and paramaters while your at it.
Lint. So the variable I just defined shadows a higher one? C would have told me that in 1979, but c++ in 2009 apparently prefers me to find out on my own.
Some decent error messages. If I promise never to define a class with the same name inside the method of a class - do you promise to tell me about a missing "}". In fact can the compiler have some knowledge of history - so if I added an unbalanced "{" or "(" to a previously working file could we consider mentioning this in the message?
Can the STL error messages please (sorry to quote another comment) not look like you read "/dev/random", stuck "!/bin/perl" in front and then ran the tax code through the result?
How about some warnings for useful things? "Integer used as bool performance warning" is not useful, it doesn't make any performance difference, I don't have a choice - it's what the library does, and you have already told me 50 times.
But if I miss a ";" from the end of a class declaration or a "}" from the end of a method definition you don't warn me - you go out of your way to find the least likely (but theoretically) correct way to parse the result.
It's like the built in spell checker in this browser which happily accepts me misspelling wether (because that spelling is an archaic term for a castrated male goat! How many times do I write about soprano herbivores?)
How about spell checking? 40 years ago mainframe Fortran compilers had spell checking so if misspelled "WRITE" you didn't come back the next day to a pile of cards and a snotty error message. You got a warning that "WRIET" had been changed to WRITE in line X. Now the compiler happily continues and spends 10mins building some massive browse file and debugger output before telling you that you misspelled prinft 10,000 lines ago.
ps. Yes a lot of these only apply to Visual C++.
pps. Yes they are coming with my medication now.
If talking about MS Visual Studio C++, Visual Assist is a very handy tool for code completition, some refactorings - e.g. rename all/selected references, find/goto declaration, but I still miss the richness of Java IDEs like JBuilder or IntelliJ.
What I still miss, is a semantic diff tool - you know, one which does not compare the two files line-by-line, but statements/expressions. What I've found on the internet are only some abandoned tries - if you know one, please write in comment
The main problem with C++ is that it is hard to parse. That's why there are so very few tools out there that work on source code. (And that's also why we're stuck with some of the most horrific error messages in the history of compilers.) The result is, that, with very few exceptions (I only know doxygen and Visual Assist), it's down to the actual compiler to support everything needed to assist us writing and massaging the code. With compilers traditionally being rather streamlined command line tools, that's a very weak foundation to build rich editor support on.
For about ten years now, I'm working with VS. meanwhile, its code completion is almost usable. (Yes, I'm working on dual core machines. I wouldn't have said this otherwise, wouldn't I?) If you use Visual Assist, code completion is actually quite good. Both VS itself and VA come with some basic refactoring nowadays. That, too, is almost usable for the few things it aims for (even though it's still notably less so than code completion). Of course, >15 years of refactoring with search & replace being the only tool in the box, my demands are probably much too deteriorated compared to other languages, so this might not mean much.
However, what I am really lacking is still: Fully standard conforming compilers and standard library implementations on all platforms my code is ported to. And I'm saying this >10 years after the release of the last standard and about a year before the release of the next one! (Which just adds this: C++1x being widely adopted by 2011.)
Once these are solved, there's a few things that keep being mentioned now and then, but which vendors, still fighting with compliance to a >10 year old standard (or, as is actually the case with some features, having even given up on it), never got around to actually tackle:
usable, sensible, comprehensible compiler messages (como is actually pretty good, but that's only if you compare it to other C++ compilers); a linker that doesn't just throw up its hands and says "something's wrong, I can't continue" (if you have taught C++ as a first language, you'll know what I mean); concepts ('nuff said)
an IO stream implementation that doesn't throw away all the compile-time advantages which overloading operator<<() gives us by resorting to calling the run-time-parsing printf() under the hood (Dietmar Kühl once set out to do this, unfortunately his implementation died without the techniques becoming widespread)
STL implementations on all platforms that give rich debugging support (Dinkumware is already pretty good in that)
standard library implementations on all platforms that use every trick in the book to give us stricter checking at compile-time and run-time and more performance (wnhatever happened to yasli?)
the ability to debug template meta programs (yes, jalf already mentioned this, but it cannot be said too often)
a compiler that renders tools like lint useless (no need to fear, lint vendors, that's just wishful thinking)
If all these and a lot of others that I have forgotten to mention (feel free to add) are solved, it would be nice to get refactoring support that almost plays in the same league as, say, Java or C#. But only then.
A compiler which tries to optimize the compilation model.
Rather than naively include headers as needed, parsing them again in every compilation unit, why not parse the headers once first, build complete syntax trees for them (which would have to include preprocessor directives, since we don't yet know which macros are defined), and then simply run through that syntax tree whenever the header is included, applying the known #defines to prune it.
It could even be be used as a replacement for precompiled headers, so every header could be precompiled individually, just by dumping this syntax tree to the disk. We wouldn't need one single monolithic and error-prone precompiled header, and would get finer granularity on rebuilds, rebuilding as little as possible even if a header is modified.
Like my other suggestions, this would be a lot of work to implement, but I can't see any fundamental problems rendering it impossible.
It seems like it could dramatically speed up compile-times, pretty much rendering it linear in the number of header files, rather than in the number of #includes.
A fast and reliable indexer. Most of the fancy features come after this.
A common tool to enforce coding standards.
Take all the common standards and allow you to turn them on/off as appropriate for your project.
Currently just a bunch of perl scrips usullay has to supstitute.
I'm pretty happy with the state of C++ tools. The only thing I can think of is a default install of Boost in VS/gcc.
Refactoring, Refactoring, Refactoring. And compilation while typing. For refactorings I am missing at least half of what most modern Java IDEs can do. While Visual Assist X goes a long way, a lot of refactoring is missing. The task of writing C++ code is still pretty much that. Writing C++ code. The more the IDE supports high level refactoring the more it becomes construction, the more mallable the structure is the easier it will be to iterate over the structure and improve it. Pick up a demo version of Intellij and see what you are missing. These are just some that I remember from a couple of years ago.
Extract interface: taken a view classes with a common interface, move the common functions into an interface class (for C++ this would be an abstract base class) and derive the designated functions as abstract
Better extract method: mark a section of code and have the ide write a function that executes that code, constructing the correct parameters and return values
Know the type of each of the symbols that you are working with so that not only command completion can be correct for derived values e.g. symbol->... but also only offer functions that return the type that can be used in the current expression e.g. for
UiButton button = window->...
At the ... only insert functions that actually return a UiButton.
A tool all on it's own: Naming Conventions.
Intelligent Intellisense/Code Completion even for template-heavy code.
When you're inside a function template, of course the compiler can't say anything for sure about the template parameter (at least not without Concepts), but it should be able to make a lot of guesses and estimates. Depending on how the type is used in the function, it should be able to narrow the possible types down, in effect a kind of conservative ad-hoc Concepts. If one line in the function calls .Foo() on a template type, obviously a Foo member method must exist, and Intellisense should suggest it in the rest of the function as well.
It could even look at where the function is invoked from, and use that to determine at least one valid template parameter type, and simply offer Intellisense inside the function based on that.
If the function is called with a int as a template parameter, then obviously, use of int must be valid, and so the IDE could use that as a "sample type" inside the function and offer Intellisense suggestions based on that.
JavaScript just got Intellisense support in VS, which had to overcome a lot of similar problems, so it can be done. Of course, with C++'s level of complexity, it'd be a ridiculous amount of work. But it'd be a nice feature.
Related
I encountered this issue a dozen, if not a million times already: I compile a c++ program on visual studio and get a dozen, if not a million warnings and/or errors suggesting that I am doing something very dangerous and that there is no way my compiler will let me do that. the warnings/errors tell me that I am using a deprecated function and that I should consider using some other safer function that may or may not do the same thing as this one, but I have no idea what this one does in the first place since I did not write it.
After some research (I do it everytime, I am not a quick learner) I find out I am not the first one facing this particular problem, and I can coerce my compiler to work with this program with the proper macro definition (for the future readers who don't care about my question but want to compile their program, you have to define _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE, don't you ever dare following visual studio's advice and using the allegedly safe function).
I have often read in the manual or on this very website, along with the answer, the fact that I should not do that if I don't know precisely what I am doing.
I must confess: I have no idea what I am doing, and I would be very grateful if someone would accept to explain it to me.
So here are my questions:
What are those functions that are unsafe? Why do they exist in the first place?
What is unsafe about them?
Why are they so often found in perfectly honourable libraries?
I have come to the understanding that there is no safe and portable alternative to those functions: why is it so? How about we have some people think about it and try to define a way to do it, and everyone would accept to do it that way, and we would call it standard maybe?
To tackle your questions in order:
They exist in the first place because the standard wrote them in such a way. Standards authors are human so don't think of everything and this left some security weaknesses in the C API. You can find a list of these deprecated functions at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235384.aspx.
Many of the functions are unsafe as they allow such things as buffer overruns to occur but other security vulnerabilities may be exposed depending on the function.
Honourable libraries generally try for some cross platform compatibility so I suspect will try to stick to stand C rather than using compiler specific functions and extensions.
The "perfect" standard will probably never exist as in my first point :) Some of the C API problems can be avoided using C++ but that's a big hammer to crack a small nut and brings security vulnerabilities of its own.
I am looking at various STL headers provided with compilers and I cant imagine the developers actually writing all this code by hand.
All the macros and the weird names of varaibles and classes - they would have to remember all of them! Seems error prone to me.
Are parts of the headers result of some text preprocessing or generation?
I've maintained Visual Studio's implementation of the C++ Standard Library for 7 years (VC's STL was written by and licensed from P.J. Plauger of Dinkumware back in the mid-90s, and I work with PJP to pick up new features and maintenance bugfixes), and I can tell you that I do all of my editing "by hand" in a plain text editor. None of the STL's headers or sources are automatically generated (although Dinkumware's master sources, which I have never seen, go through automated filtering in order to produce customized drops for Microsoft), and the stuff that's checked into source control is shipped directly to users without any further modification (now, that is; previously we ran them through a filtering step that caused lots of headaches). I am notorious for not using IDEs/autocomplete, although I do use Source Insight to browse the codebase (especially the underlying CRT whose guts I am less familiar with), and I extensively rely on grep. (And of course I use diff tools; my favorite is an internal tool named "odd".) I do engage in very very careful cut-and-paste editing, but for the opposite reason as novices; I do this when I understand the structure of code completely, and I wish to exactly replicate parts of it without accidentally leaving things out. (For example, different containers need very similar machinery to deal with allocators; it should probably be centralized, but in the meantime when I need to fix basic_string I'll verify that vector is correct and then copy its machinery.) I've generated code perhaps twice - once when stamping out the C++14 transparent operator functors that I designed (plus<>, multiplies<>, greater<>, etc. are highly repetitive), and again when implementing/proposing variable templates for type traits (recently voted into the Library Fundamentals Technical Specification, probably destined for C++17). IIRC, I wrote an actual program for the operator functors, while I used sed for the variable templates. The plain text editor that I use (Metapad) has search-and-replace capabilities that are quite useful although weaker than outright regexes; I need stronger tools if I want to replicate chunks of text (e.g. is_same_v = is_same< T >::value).
How do STL maintainers remember all this stuff? It's a full time job. And of course, we're constantly consulting the Standard/Working Paper for the required interfaces and behavior of code. (I recently discovered that I can, with great difficulty, enumerate all 50 US states from memory, but I would surely be unable to enumerate all STL algorithms from memory. However, I have memorized the longest name, as a useless bit of trivia. :->)
The looks of it are designed to be weird in some sense. The standard library and the code in there needs to avoid conflicts with names used in user programs, including macros and there are almost no restrictions as to what can be in a user program.
They are most probably hand written, and as others have mentioned, if you spend some time looking at them you will figure out what the coding conventions are, how variables are named and so on. One of the few restrictions include that user code cannot use identifiers starting with _ followed by a capital letter or __ (two consecutive underscores), so you will find many names in the standard headers that look like _M_xxx or __yyy and it might surprise at first, but after some time you just ignore the prefix...
Type traits are cool and I've used them since they originated in boost a few years ago. However, when you look at their implementation (check out "How is_base_of works?" StackOverflow thread).
Why won't compiler help here? For example, if you want to check if some class is base of another, compiler already knows that, why can't it tell us? This would make things like concepts so much easier to implement and use. You could use language constructs right there.
I am not sure, but I am guessing that it would increase general performance. It is like asking compiler for help, instead of C++ language.
I suspect that the primary reason will sound something like "we need to maintain backwards compatibility" and I agree, but why won't the compiler be more active in generating generic templated code?
Actually... some do.
The thing is that if something can be implemented in pure C++ code, there is no reason, other than simplifying the code, to hard-wire them in the compiler. It is then a matter of trade-off, is the value brought by the code simplification worth the hard-wiring ?
This depends on several points:
correctness (some times software may only partially emulate the trait)
complexity of the code ~~ maintenance burden
performance
...
Once all those points have been weighted, then you can determine whether it's more advantageous to put things in the library or the compiler; and the more likely situation is that you will end up with a mixed strategy: a couple intrinsics in the compiler used as building blocks to provide the required interface in the library.
Note that the maintenance burden is much more significant in a compiler: any C++ developer sufficiently acquainted with the language can delve into a library implementation, whereas the compiler code is a black-box. Therefore, it'll be much easier to debug and patch the library than the compiler, so there is incentive not to put things in the compiler unless you have a very good reason to.
It's hard to give an objective answer here, but I suspect the following.
The code using language quirks to find out this stuff has often already been written (Boost, etc).
The compiler does not have to be changed to implement this if it can be done with language quirks (which saves a lot of time in writing, compiling, debugging and testing).
It's basically a "don't fix what isn't broken" mentality.
Compiler help for type traits has always been a design goal. TR1 formally introduced type traits, and included a section that described acceptable incorrect results in some cases to enable writing the type traits in straight C++. When those type traits were added to C++11 (with some name changes that don't affect their implementation) the allowance for incorrect results was removed, effectively requiring compiler help to implement some of them. And even for those that can be implemented in straight C++, compiler writers prefer intrinsics to complicated templates so that you don't have to put a drip pan under your computer to catch the slag as the overworked compiler causes the computer to melt down.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
The source code of our application is hundreds of thousands of line, thousands of files, and in places very old - the app was first written in 1995 or 1996. Over the past few years my team has greatly improved the quality of the source, but one issue remains that particularly bugs me: a lot of classes have a lot of methods fully defined in their header file.
I have no problem with methods declared inline in a header in some cases - a struct's constructor, a simple method where inlining measurably makes it faster (we have some math functions like this), etc. But the liberal use of inlined methods for no apparent reason is:
Messy
Makes it hard to find the implementation of a method (especially searching through a tree of classes for a virtual function, only to find one class had its version declared in the header...)
Probably increases the compiled code size
Probably causes issues for our linker, which is notoriously flaky for large codebases. To be fair, it has got much better in the past few years, but it's not perfect.
That last reason may now be causing problems for us and it's a good reason to go through the codebase and move most definitions to the source file.
Our codebase is huge. Is there an automated tool that can do (most of) this for us?
Notes:
We use Embarcadero RAD Studio 2010. In other words, the dialect of C++ includes VCL and other extensions, etc.
A few headers are standalone, but most are paired with a corresponding .cpp file, as you normally would. Apart from the extension the filename is the same, i.e., if there are methods defined in X.h, they can be moved to X.cpp. This also means the tool doesn't have to handle parsing the whole project - it could probably just parse individual pairs of .cpp/.h files, ignore the includes, etc, so long as it could reliably recognise a method with a body defined in a class declaration and move it.
You might try Lazy C++. I have not used it, but I believe it is a command line tool to do just what you want.
If the code is working then I would vote against any major automated rewrite.
Lots of work could be involved fixing it up.
Small iterative improvements over time is a better technique as you will be able to test each change in isolation (and add unit tests). Anyway your major complaint about not being able to find the code is not a real problem and is already solved. There are already tools that will index your code base so your editor will jump to the correct function definition without you having to search for it. Take a look at ctags or the equivalent for your editor.
Messy
Subjective
Makes it hard to find the implementation of a method (especially searching through a tree of classes for a virtual function, only to find one class had its version declared in the header...)
There are already tools available for finding the function. ctags will make a file that allows you to jump directly to the function from any decent editor (vim/emacs). I am sure your editor if nto one of these has the equivalent tool.
Probably increases the compiled code size
Unlikely. The compiler will choose to inline or not based on internal metrics not weather it is marked inline in the source.
Probably causes issues for our linker, which is notoriously flaky for large codebases. To be fair, it has got much better in the past few years, but it's not perfect.
Unlikely. If your linker is flakey then it is flakey it is not going to make much difference where the functions are defined as this has no bearing on if they are inlined anyway.
XE2 includes a new static analyzer. It might be worthwhile to give the new version of C++Builer's trial a spin.
You have a number of problems to solve:
How to regroup the source and header files ideally
How to automate the code modifications to carry this out
In both cases, you need a robust C++ parser with full name resolution to determine the dependencies accurately.
Then you need machinery that can reliably modify the C++ source code.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit with its C++ Front End could be used for this. DMS has been used for large-scale C++ code restructuring; see http://www.semdesigns.com/Company/Publications/ and track down the first paper "Case Study: Re-engineering C++ Component Models Via Automatic Program Transformation". (There's an older version of this paper you can download from there, but the published one is better). AFAIK, DMS is the only tool to have ever been applied to transforming C++ on large scale.
This SO discussion on reorganizing code addresses the problem of grouping directly.
HI,
I am normally a C programmer.
I do regularly debug C programs on unix environment using tools like gdb,dbx.
i have never done debugging of big applications of C++.
Is that much different from how we debug in C.
theoretically i am quite good in C++ but have never got a chance to debug C++ programs.
I am also not sure about what kind of technical problems we face in c++ which will lead a developer to switch on the debugger for finding out the problem.
what are the common issues we face in C++ which will make debugger to be started
what are the challenges that a c programmer might face while debugging a C++ program?
Is it difficult and complex when compared to C?
It is basically the same.
Just remember when setting break points manually you need to fully qualify the method name with both the namespace(s) and class (As a resul i someti es find it easier to use line numbers to define break points)
Don't forget that calls to destructors are invisible in the source, but you can still step into them at the end of a block.
A few minor differences:
When typing a full-qualified symbol such as foo::bar::fum(args) in the gdb shell you have to start with a single quote for gdb to recognize it and calculate completions.
As others have said, library templates expose their internals in the debugger. You can poke around in std::vector pretty easily, but poking through std::map may not be a wise way to spend your time.
The aggressive and abundant inlining common in C++ programs can make a single line of code have seemingly endless steps. Things like shared_ptr can be particularly annoying because every access to the pointer expands inline to the template internals. You never really get to used it.
If you've got a ton of overloaded symbol names, selecting which one you want from the readline completion can be unpleasant. (Which "foo" did you want? All of them? Just these two?)
GDB can be used to debug C++ as well, so if you have an understanding of how C++ works (and understand problems that can stem from the object-oriented side of things), then you shouldn't have all that much trouble (at least, not much more than you would debugging a C program). I think...
Quite a few issues really, but it also depends on the debugger you are using, its versioning etc:
Accessing individual members of templatized class is not easy
Exception handling is a problem -- i have seen debuggers doing a better job with setjmp/longjmp
Setting breakpoints with something like obj1 == obj2, where these are not POD types may not work
The good thing that I like about debuggers is that to access private/protected class members I don't have to call get routines; just [obj-name].[var-name] is good enough.
Arpan
GDB has had a rocky past with regard to debugging c++. For a while it couldn't efficiently break inside constructors/destructors.
Also stl container were netoriously difficult to inspect in gdb. std::string was painful but generally workable. std::map was so difficult, that I generally added print statements unless there was no other way.
The constructor/destructor problem has been fixed for a few years.
The stl support got fixed in gdb 7.0.
You might still have issues with boost's libraries. I at time had difficulty getting gdb to give me asses to the contents of a shared_ptr.
So I guess debugging your own C++ isn't really that difficult, it's debugging 3rd party classes and template code that could be a problem.
C++ objects might be sometimes harder to analyze. Also as data is sometimes nested in several classes (across several layers) it might take some time to "unfold" it (as already said by others in this thread). Its hard to generally say so, as it depends very much on C++ features used and programming style and complexity of the problem to analyze (actually that is language independent).
IMO: if someone finds himselfself in the need to debug very often he should reconsider his programming style.
Usually for me it is all about error handling at the end. If a program behaves unexpected your error logs should indicate enough information to reconstruct what happened at any stage.
This also gives you the benefit that you can "debug" problems offline later once your program gets shipped to end users.