|
Message Closed
modified 27-Oct-22 17:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay wait a minute. @jschell was clearly talking about compiled (and implied strongly typed) languages in their post.
I can think of a ton of reasons why someone would want to lint JS code, or for that matter any duck typed code, but even moreso JS with it's sort of haphazard evolution from ECMAScript and the syntax weirdities that brings.
None of them really apply to C and C++, unless you stretch.
Modern compilers are really good at teasing out potential problems in your code that would otherwise be caught by static analysis tools.
That doesn't really apply to JS.
So this is apples and oranges.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Oct-22 17:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't be what person? The person that dared disagree with you and politely said so?
Gosh, maybe you really *shouldn't* visit this place.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Oct-22 17:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me? You came in here being like "don't be that guy" and then basically "you're the reason I don't post here" after I simply disagreed with you.
Right after you got done disagreeing with the original poster.
Physician, heal thyself.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Oct-22 17:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The thread is there for everyone to see. I'm satisfied with my estimation of this exchange. You were the one attacking other people here. Not me.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
@Honey
I am imagining a sock puppet on each of your hands flaming each other during this exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I really didn't want it to get to that point.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I see what happened. The other commenter seems to have deleted their account or all their posts - not sure which. It makes the whole thing weird.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I read the reply. It was polite.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Oct-22 17:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that escalated. Maybe you should take your own advice and shouldn't post here.
I'm not the one attacking other commenters for simply disagreeing, insulting their professional skills, and generally being a nuisance.
I had to look at your profile to make sure you weren't a troll on a temporary account.
*I* bring the site down? Again, some self awareness might do you some good.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Oct-22 17:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You're just in attack mode now. It's not professional. I'm done with you.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Oct-22 17:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
My profile picture is in fact me.
Now find a hobby that doesn't involve me.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Oct-22 17:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! The filter is called "webcam, in my living room"
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I've learned a ton about the quirks of a language, etc. just by using them.
Myself learn languages by using the language.
I believe that in a professional environment junior programmers might be helped by this.
But they would be helped far more with mentoring and code reviews. And throwing junior developers at a project without mentoring is a failure of management.
As a senior developer working on a project requiring passing static analysis is nothing but annoying. I have seen it lead to logic errors when someone just accepted the analysis and then attempted to work around it producing code that the analyzer passed but which actually introduced runtime and logic errors into the application.
|
|
|
|
|
i agree. using a linter for suggestions is great, being bound to its 'rules' isn't.
code reviews would be better, some type of paired programming would be better. If the code compiles, then a linter may interfere with the writer's intentions. If the code compiles and it wasn't the writer's intention, then having a second eye is better than a linter. AND if someone is writing code that requires linting I would think that person shouldn't be writing code.
I've never been happy with linters; they force you to write code according to someone else's style. If we're just using linters to 'teach' people how to write code then that person probably shouldn't be writing code.
like the quote from Ratatouille cartoon, "Anybody one can cook, but not anyone should cook"
|
|
|
|
|
๐ถall my software without already has a bunch of warnings about async no await, and none reachable code, why would I want to add to that list
and then c#10 is used, and gives more warnings about shortening and rewriting things to be even more compressed then before
......I think I might fix some of these warnings first then add linter ๐
|
|
|
|
|
in my opinion, it's one of the greatest ideas.
in the spirit of non-standardized C, from the original K&R book:
"For those situations where strong type checking is desirable, a separate version of the compiler is used. This program is called lint, apparently because it picks bits of fluff from one's programs. lint does not generate code, but instead applies a very strict check to as many aspects of a program as can be verified at compile and load time. It detects type mismatches, inconsistent argument usage, used or apparently uninitialized variables, potential portability issues, and the like."
this is the ultimate separation of concern. you can have original C type checking: "Existing compilers provide no run-time checking of array subscripts, argument types, etc." or you can have strong type checking (as strong as it gets), but it's up to you. more in a hippie manner, than in a ____ wing political manner, telling you what is good (therefore allowed) and what is evil (therefore forbidden).
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Martin ISDN wrote: in the spirit of non-standardized C, from the original K&R book:
Err...except of course that when C was created....
Compilers were not doing strong error detection.
The C compiler specifically did not do a lot of that.
And of course lint originated in use with C itself. And from Bell labs itself where C was also invented. So as I said it was to correct for the abilities lacking in that compiler.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
