In this article I'm going to discuss a problem few people think of. Computer simulation of various processes becomes more and more widespread. This technology is wonderful because it allows us to save time and materials which would be otherwise spent on senseless chemical, biological, physical and other kinds of experiments. A computer simulation model of a wing section flow may help significantly reduce the number of prototypes to be tested in a real wind tunnel. Numerical experiments are given more and more trust nowadays. However, dazzled by the triumph of computer simulation, nobody notices the problem of software complexity growth behind it. People treat computer and computer programs just as a means to obtain necessary results. I'm worried that very few know and care about the fact that software size growth leads to a non-linear growth of the number of software bugs. It's dangerous to exploit a computer treating it just as a big calculator. So, that's what I think - I need to share this idea with other people.
I'm currently experiencing a strong cognitive dissonance, and it won't let me go. You see, I visit various programmers' forums and see topics where people discuss noble ideas about how to write super-reliable classes; somebody tells he has his project built with the switches -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -Weffc++, and so on. But, God, where are all these scientific and technological achievements? Why do I come across most silly mistakes again and again? Perhaps something is wrong with me?
Not so long ago one of our colleagues left the team and joined one company developing software for embedded systems. There is nothing extraordinary about it: in every firm people come and go, all the time. Their choice is determined by bonuses offered, the convenience aspect, and personal preferences. What we find interesting is quite another thing. Our ex-colleague is sincerely worried about the quality of the code he deals with in his new job. And that has resulted in us writing a joint article. You see, once you have figured out what static analysis is all about, you just don't feel like settling for "simply programming".
I do not know why I may need it, but suddenly I wanted to have two mouse pointers in Linux, after all I already have two mice, one is a wireless mouse and the other is a touchpad one. The idea came at a time when I hooked up a second mouse, namely, a third cursor control device.
I want each mouse to get a cursor, but how do I get it?
Let's see what xinput will tell us:
max 23:20:19 ~ $ xinput list
⎡ Virtual core pointer id=2 [master pointer (3)]
⎜ ↳ Virtual core XTEST pointer id=4 [slave pointer (2)]
⎜ ↳ Logitech USB Receiver id=10 [slave pointer (2)]
⎜ ↳ Logitech USB Receiver id=11 [slave pointer (2)]
⎜ ↳ Genius 2.4G Wireless Mouse id=12 [slave pointer (2)]
⎜ ↳ SynPS/2 Synaptics TouchPad id=14 [slave pointer (2)]
⎣ Virtual core keyboard id=3 [master keyboard (2)]
↳ Virtual core XTEST keyboard id=5 [slave keyboard (3)]
↳ Power Button id=6 [slave keyboard (3)]
↳ Video Bus id=7 [slave keyboard (3)]
↳ Sleep Button id=8 [slave keyboard (3)]
↳ Villem id=9 [slave keyboard (3)]
↳ AT Translated Set 2 keyboard id=13 [slave keyboard (3)]
↳ HP WMI hotkeys id=15 [slave keyboard (3)]
Some of our users run static analysis only occasionally. They find new errors in their code and, feeling glad about this, willingly renew PVS-Studio licenses. I should feel glad too, shouldn't I? But I feel sad - because you get only 10-20% of the tool's efficiency when using it in such a way, while you could obtain at least 80-90% if you used it otherwise. In this post I will tell you about the most common mistake among users of static code analysis tools.
We thought of checking the Boost library long ago but were not sure if we would collect enough results to write an article. However, the wish remained. We tried to do that twice but gave up each time because we didn't know how to replace a compiler call with a PVS-Studio.exe call. Now we've got us new arms, and the third attempt has been successful. So, are there any bugs to be found in Boost?
About a year ago we published in our blog a series of articles on development of Visual Studio plugins in C#. We have recently revised those materials and added new sections and now invite you to have a look at the updated version of the manual.
Creating extension packages (plug-ins) for Microsoft Visual Studio IDE appears as quite an easy task at the first sight. There exist an excellent MSDN documentation, as well as various articles, examples and a lot of other additional sources on this topic. But, at the same time, it could also appear as a difficult task when an unexpected behavior is encountered along the way. Although it can be said that such issues are quite common to any programming task, the subject of IDE plug-in development is still not thoroughly covered at this moment.
Since the days of a Gold Rush a little has changed in the rating of high-risk enterprises by the man. A half century later, still in the same California is the Silicon Rush epicenter.
Here are in the photo San Francisco in XIX century and today.
I find this question pretty strange. The answer is yes, of course, and that will be so for a long time. But I'm asked this question from time to time at conferences or when communicating with developers on forums. I've decided to answer this question in the form of a brief post so that I could just refer people to it in the future.
We develop the PVS-Studio code analyzer for C/C++ software developers. People sometimes ask me why these particular languages; C/C++ is old and few developers use it, isn't it so? When I tell them this is quite a popular language and it is widely used, they look sincerely astonished.
Perhaps the reason is that the Internet is full of articles, forums and news about new languages and their capabilities. Programmers who don't work with the C/C++ language simply don't notice rare news items about it among all that stuff. It's quite natural: there's no point in advertising what has been widely known and used for a long time. As a result, they come to the conclusion that this language was abandoned long ago and now is used only to maintain some old projects.
It's not so. This is a very popular, live and actively developing language. Just have a look at the rating of programming languages to see that I'm right. Currently it can be found here: TIOBE Programming Community Index for January 2013.
If you sum up C, C++ and Objective-C, you'll get 37%. It's 6 times higher than PHP, for instance. The extinction of the C/C++ language family is quite out of the question.
Here's the answer to the question why it's C/C++ that we prefer to support in PVS-Studio: because these are the most popular languages nowadays. Besides, they are complex, tricky and much error-prone. It's just a paradise where static code analyzers can thrive.
Note. Don't take it as a criticism of the C or C++ language. It's just the price we have to pay for the flexibility of these language and the capability of getting fast optimized code they generate.
Once again I would like to touch upon the wrong belief that C/C++ is now used only in old projects or microcontrollers. No, many contemporary and popular applications are being written in this language. For instance, such is Chromium - you can't say it's an ancient project by any means.
Here is a list of popular applications written in C++: C++ Applications.
To finish the article, I would like to give you one more link to a discussion: Why is C++ still a very popular language in quantitative finance?
Surely, you paid attention to the computer using which the young John Connor hacked PIN-code to the ATM and the access code to the lab in Terminator 2. This computer was the Atari Portfolio. When the movie was showing in theaters in 1991, it seemed beyond the fiction. I was lucky to find it, and I want to share with you its features.