Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Search
  • Get Qt Extensions
  • Unsolved
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Special Interest Groups
  3. C++ Gurus
  4. Google C++ Style Guide
Forum Updated to NodeBB v4.3 + New Features

Google C++ Style Guide

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved C++ Gurus
20 Posts 9 Posters 20.3k Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • G Offline
    G Offline
    goetz
    wrote on last edited by
    #3

    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).

    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • A Offline
      A Offline
      andre
      wrote on last edited by
      #4

      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.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • G Offline
        G Offline
        goetz
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

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

        http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          Franzk
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          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.

          "Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people." -- W.C. Fields

          http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P Offline
            P Offline
            Peppy
            wrote on last edited by
            #7

            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"...

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              Franzk
              wrote on last edited by
              #8

              Heh, back to good old plain C again:

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

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

              "Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people." -- W.C. Fields

              http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • P Offline
                P Offline
                Peppy
                wrote on last edited by
                #9

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

                Google Style Guide is too strict for me...

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  Franzk
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #10

                  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++.

                  "Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people." -- W.C. Fields

                  http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • P Offline
                    P Offline
                    Peppy
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #11

                    @Franzk: I totally agree with you.

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

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L Offline
                      L Offline
                      leon.anavi
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12

                      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! :)

                      http://anavi.org/

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • P Offline
                        P Offline
                        Peppy
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #13

                        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

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • F Offline
                          F Offline
                          Franzk
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #14

                          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
                          };@

                          "Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people." -- W.C. Fields

                          http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • A Offline
                            A Offline
                            alexander
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #15

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

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Offline
                              S Offline
                              situ117
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #16

                              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.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • G Offline
                                G Offline
                                goetz
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #17

                                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

                                http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • P Offline
                                  P Offline
                                  Peppy
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #18

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

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • G Offline
                                    G Offline
                                    goetz
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #19

                                    [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) :-)

                                    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • E Offline
                                      E Offline
                                      escorciav
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #20

                                      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?

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0

                                      • Login

                                      • Login or register to search.
                                      • First post
                                        Last post
                                      0
                                      • Categories
                                      • Recent
                                      • Tags
                                      • Popular
                                      • Users
                                      • Groups
                                      • Search
                                      • Get Qt Extensions
                                      • Unsolved