Author: Bo Persson
Date: 14:33:21 12/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2005 at 14:16:08, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. Yes, but that comes as a result of point (5) above. MS already had the deprecation machinery in place, so they used it for these warnings. They could have added some specific functionality, put (5) made them not. (A full confession can be found on MS's own forums.) > 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. Right. Bo Persson
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.