| Ultimate code quality and correctness should be the one direction everyone should converge to unconditionally. It is hard enough to write code that works and the “automated tool” you and Mr. Luca seem to be referring to is called “the C++ compiler”, something that everyone writing code uses at some point in the development lifecycle if I’m not mistaken? Everyone benefits from a compiler made capable of catching more mistakes and the better insights also help developers add runtime checks for conditions that aren’t readily apparent. Helping the compiler understand the developer’s intent beyond what can be inferred from the code cannot automated by definition and therefore implies manual annotations. Traditional static analyzers cannot infer intent and also don’t help the compiler emit better code. The source annotations enable the compiler to get more insight about the intent and meaning of the code as well as its dynamic behavior and this - by definition - requires more information than what is conveyed from the code alone. Suggesting that some traditional static analyzer is “superior without making a mess” is a disingenuous and misinformed statement. In addition to better compile-time insights imagine for an instant what benefits could be gained from a fully annotated codebase run through AI-based threats and defect modeling from a company investing double digit billions in that technology? Both GCC and Clang make baby steps in code annotations, so get used to the “unreadable mess” because it’s coming like it or not ;) Anyway, I’ll leave it there. I get that this is a step of code evolution this project is not willing to make. # —Axel On Oct 25, 2023, at 06:06, Arnaud Loonstra <[email protected]> wrote:
|
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
