PC-lint is a very complex tool, easily as complex as a compiler.
PC-lint is a very complex tool, easily as complex as a compiler.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
$230 is expensive. That doesn't mean it's priced incorrectly or not worth it.
Agreed, but I was never hinting at that it was incorrectly priced.
I just feel it's such a shame that the price is so high. Many will not be able to afford such a thing. To companies, it's like sticks and stones, but to private users who just develop on their free time...
Originally Posted by Adak
Well VC++ express is free. So if I'm just writting a program for myself at home, that's probably what I'm going to use since I don't really need all the bells & whistles of the Pro edition. But I'd still like to see if I have any bugs that the compiler (for some strange reason) doesn't tell me about. I think this would also be great for students who could barely even notice a simple bug, let alone these subtle ones.To put that in perspective, Visual Studio 2008 Standard edition costs $299. So, just as such a developer would be forced to do without PC-lint due to the cost issues, he/she would be forced to make do with Visual Studio 2008 Express edition, despite it being targeted at hobbyists and students instead of professional developers. That's life for a lone developer struggling to balance the budget, I guess
Anyways, I hope someone at the VC++ team of Microsoft is reading this.
I don't have a Windows port of gcc available, but do the errors Dave found also get reported on the Windows gcc compilers? If so, that might be one free alternative.
What I posted was from Code::Blocks' MinGW gcc.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
A. cry all the way to the bank.I just feel it's such a shame that the price is so high. Many will not be able to afford such a thing. To companies, it's like sticks and stones, but to private users who just develop on their free time...
B. use splint.
Choose one.
$230 is really not a lot of money. It's a bargain! Even for the lone, struggling, non-student developer.
Cutting on Saturday nights, juggling here and there on spurious expenses, I can imagine a low income programmer being able to buy PC-Lint after, say, 6 months of saving for it. That's really a worst case scenario.
Looking at those $230 as an investment and not money you throw away in a pair of pants or getting out to the movies, is the key.
EDIT: The only annoying tidbit being perhaps that you get the same for free if you change to linux
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Er... what?! O_o
Splint isn't even comparable to PC-Lint for C++ source, and I don't know of anything Splint will catch that 'g++ -Wall -Wextra' will not. Heck, for one thing, Splint will happily pass invalid C++ source.
If you're not talking about Splint I'd love to know what you are talking about.
Soma
That's because Splint doesn't analyze C++ code, but C. However it can, and will detect many problems common to both programming languages if you take the time to set it up to ignore most C++ constructs.
The point Citizen tried to put across, I believe, is cough up the money or go by with unsuitable tools that will demand a lot of configuration. Or, go by without 'em.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
