调试C vs调试C ++ [英] Debugging C vs debugging C++

问题描述

我正在浏览les haltton的网页，这是一个软件工程

教授（ http://www.leshaltton.org ）我发现这些数据在


htp：//www.leshatton.org/Documents/dross_2006.pdf


<开始报价>

已知测量摘要

？ C ++ OO系统具有与传统C或
Pascal系统相当的缺陷密度。

？ C ++ OO系统中的每个缺陷都需要大约两倍的时间来修复，就像传统系统中的那样。


这对于简单缺陷和困难缺陷都是如此。整个

的分配是正确的。

？已经观察到使用继承的组件具有6倍的b $ b缺陷密度。


多少这可归因于C ++是未知的。


<最终报价>


很明显，除了备受吹捧的炒作之外，OO系统还没有给C带来任何真正的改进。问题在于我

意见，这些系统的复杂性令人震惊，除非你写下这些系统，否则它们会调试thema的噩梦。


jacob

解决方案

jacob navia写道：

我正在浏览les haltton的网页，软件工程

教授（ http://www.leshaltton.org ）我发现这个数据在

这是'hatton not hallton。您认为在发布之前或至少之后可以检查您的

链接吗？

htp：//www.leshatton.org/ Documents / dross_2006.pdf


<开始引用>

已知测量的摘要

·C ++ OO系统具有与传统C或
Pascal系统相当的缺陷密度。

·C ++ OO系统中的每个缺陷需要修复的时间大约是传统系统的两倍。


两者都是如此简单的缺陷和困难的缺陷。整个

分布是正确的。

·使用继承的组件已被观察到具有6倍的b $ b缺陷密度。


这可归因于C ++的多少是未知的。


<最终报价>


很明显，除了备受吹捧的炒作之外，OO系统还没有给C带来任何真正的改进。问题在于我

意见，这些系统的复杂性令人震惊，除非你编写它们，否则它们会调试thema的噩梦。

这看起来像comp.programming给我。

Spiros Bousbouras写道：

jacob navia写道：

我正在浏览les haltton的网页，软件工程
教授（ http://www.leshaltton.org ）我找到了这个数据在

它的帽子不是霍尔顿。您认为在发布之前或至少之后可以检查您的

链接吗？

不停止;-)

对不起，链接是：
http://www.leshatton.org/
http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/dross_2006.pdf

I was browsing the web pages of les haltton, a software engineering
professor ( http://www.leshaltton.org ) and I found this data in

htp://www.leshatton.org/Documents/dross_2006.pdf

< begin quote >
Summary of known measurements
? C++ OO systems have comparable defect densities to conventional C or
Pascal systems.
? Each defect in a C++ OO system takes about twice as long to fix as in
a conventional system.

This is true for both simple defects AND difficult ones. The whole
distribution is right shifted.
? Components using inheritance have been observed to have 6 times the
defect density.

How much of this is attributable to C++ is unknown.

< end quote >

It is obvious that beside the much touted hype, OO systems have
not brought any real improvement to C. The problem is in my
opinion, the staggering complexity of those systems, what
makes debugging thema nightmare unless you wrote them.

jacob

解决方案

jacob navia wrote:

I was browsing the web pages of les haltton, a software engineering
professor ( http://www.leshaltton.org ) and I found this data in

It''s hatton not hallton. Do you think you could check your
links before posting them or at least afterwards ?

htp://www.leshatton.org/Documents/dross_2006.pdf

< begin quote >
Summary of known measurements
· C++ OO systems have comparable defect densities to conventional C or
Pascal systems.
· Each defect in a C++ OO system takes about twice as long to fix as in
a conventional system.

This is true for both simple defects AND difficult ones. The whole
distribution is right shifted.
· Components using inheritance have been observed to have 6 times the
defect density.

How much of this is attributable to C++ is unknown.

< end quote >

It is obvious that beside the much touted hype, OO systems have
not brought any real improvement to C. The problem is in my
opinion, the staggering complexity of those systems, what
makes debugging thema nightmare unless you wrote them.

This looks like comp.programming to me.

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

I was browsing the web pages of les haltton, a software engineering
professor ( http://www.leshaltton.org ) and I found this data in

It''s hatton not hallton. Do you think you could check your
links before posting them or at least afterwards ?

Not haltton either ;-)

Sorry the links are:
http://www.leshatton.org/
http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/dross_2006.pdf

这篇关于调试C vs调试C ++的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！