News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Applying the Linus Torvalds “Good Taste” Coding Requirement. Parent comment

Re:Applying the Linus Torvalds “Good Taste” Coding Requirement by RandomOpinion on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @12:31PM (#12797877)
For heaven's sake, everyone, please stop getting hung up on the fact that there's no error checking. Example code usually doesn't show error checking because it obscures the main point of the example.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Applying the Linus Torvalds “Good Taste” Coding Requirement by Roboprog on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @12:41PM (#12798016)
Not shown: assertions :-)

(which, for kernal code, would be turned off later, anyway)

In languages other than C, with exceptions and stack traces, most precondition checks just become clutter, anyway. Although it would be nice to have "Eiffel" style pre/post-condition (invariant assertion) blocks out-of-line that can be enabled or disabled...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Applying the Linus Torvalds “Good Taste” Coding Requirement by nickpsecurity on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @01:16PM (#12798382)
SPARK does that with efficient, system code. Then proves the code free of common errors in C. Then other tools can generate unit tests from the specs just in case. Frama-C does something similar for C. I'm not sure what the usability or thoroughness is like vs SPARK, though.

http://www.spark-2014.org/about

[ Parent | on HN ]