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 20.4k 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.
  • 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