Google C++ Style Guide

[kidproquo]

How do the Google style guides compare to the Qt style guide? Are they largely consistent?

[goetz]

I did not compare them thoroughly, but I would say they differ in naming conventions and they do more strictly enforce the rules at all (against Qt which says: follow the rules wherever you can, but feel free to break them here and then where it makes sense).

[andre]

Personally, I really like the Qt convention that class names start with a capital, and method names with a lower case letter. That is different in the Google conventions.

[goetz]

As a real qt-e developer, I prefer this too, of course :-P

[Franzk]

They're a tad too strict for my taste. If you're going to be telling people where to put their ++, you're focusing on the wrong thing.

[Peppy]

Good reading, but some points I'd rather to change...

For example:http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml?showone=Doing_Work_in_Constructors#Doing_Work_in_Constructors

As I am reading more, I am glad to we have Qt "style"...

[Franzk]

Heh, back to good old plain C again:

@Object *o = new Object;
o->init();@

@struct Object *o = malloc(sizeof(struct Object));
ObjectInit(o);@

[Peppy]

Yes, yes...C# uses it too ((void) Init() functions)

Google Style Guide is too strict for me...

[Franzk]

I think the Google style guide documents the exact mistake a lot of companies make when they are prescribing the style this specifically. Programmers are usually free form thinkers. Putting a too rigid harness on that free form thinking lets developers focus on form rather than on functionality, and frankly, I'd rather have a bit of functionality. If you want to restrict coding rigidly to a certain standard, use a language that isn't as free form as C++.

[Peppy]

@Franzk: I totally agree with you.

[quote author="Franzk" date="1305574936"]Programmers are usually free form thinkers.[/quote]
I am too ;-)

[leon.anavi]

Volker, thanks for sharing! It is always good to know how leading companies work.

[quote author="Andre" date="1305548881"]Personally, I really like the Qt convention that class names start with a capital, and method names with a lower case letter. That is different in the Google conventions. [/quote]

Yes it is really nice, although I have to admit that I am still getting used to it :)

[quote author="Franzk" date="1305574936"]I think the Google style guide documents the exact mistake a lot of companies make when they are prescribing the style this specifically. Programmers are usually free form thinkers. Putting a too rigid harness on that free form thinking lets developers focus on form rather than on functionality, and frankly, I'd rather have a bit of functionality. If you want to restrict coding rigidly to a certain standard, use a language that isn't as free form as C++.[/quote]

+1 :) Bull's eye! :)

[Peppy]

I prefer Unix or BSD style, it's not so strict as Google has...

Joke:

But the best thing that they wrote, was: http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml?showone=C++0x#C++0x
" Decision: Use only C++0x libraries and language features that have been approved for use. Currently, no such features are approved. Features will be approved individually as appropriate."
How can I use C++0x (as it Google said), if there is just specification out?? Think smarter and you'll get nonsense of using this Google Style :D

[Franzk]

Preliminary implementations, which is why no libraries at all are approved. But one can hardly expect the trailing comma in enumerators to be a library function.

@enum HuuHaa {
Murk, // c++0x specific feature
};@

[alexander]

I wonder, do trolls have analog cpplint.py?:)

[situ117]

http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Inline_Functions

Does Qt encourage inline functions inside the library which can be called from user code ? I guess it could cause binary incompatibilities if definition of inline function changes between library versions.

[goetz]

Inline functions are not strongly en- ord discouraged, but the "Coding Conventions":http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Coding_Conventions section "Binary and Source Compatibility":http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Coding_Conventions#017d38d16f3e68ae84e92996ba58c513 requires not to reimplement them (dunno if a change to the code itself would be ok) under certain circumstances.

Inline functions an B/C are a special beast, which would lead to use this feature only for short code blocks that are unlikely to change. I second the guidelines of Google here (excluding the -inl.h files).

EDIT:
To add the Qt counterparts for comparison:

• "Qt Coding Conventions":http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Coding_Conventions
• "Qt Coding Style":http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Qt_Coding_Style

[Peppy]

Wow, we've got our own coding style, that's nice :D :)

[goetz]

[quote author="Peppy" date="1305821823"]Wow, we've got our own coding style, that's nice :D :) [/quote]

Of course - every good project does have its style guide (or adopts an existing one) :-)

[escorciav]

Hi guys,

I would like to know how to import the google-style-code in qtcreator, any idea?
Is it possible as fast as import or I need to modify a xml file?