Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:16:08 12/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2005 at 14:09:05, Jon Dart wrote: >On December 16, 2005 at 13:05:18, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > > >> >>(5) Developers are lazy; you should force safer ways of doing something in their >>throat, otherwise they will address some issues only at the latest possible >>moment. Warnings help a lot. Large ISVs meet "safe" string functions >>enthusiastically, main complain is why we are doing that so late. > >I disagree in this case; deprecating functions that are used in >practically every bit of C & C++ code ever written is not a good >idea. For new code, sure, encourage some better programming practices. >But there is a huge mountain of existing code and developers who are >working on it are not thrilled to get piles of warnings all of a sudden. I don't think that the warnings are the problem. It is the tone of the warnings. I am actually grateful to know everywhere in my code where an exploit might exist. However, I think that 'language feature "x" has been deprecated' does not come off too well.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.