[throwawaybbqed]

Wow ... I want to pull my eyes out now. Is this really some uber critical path in the code or did the author(s) have too much time on their hands/optimizing some other metric (e.g. promotion, proving how smart they are, attempting to get job security). I am also astounded by two things related to documentation .. it is nearly non-existent, and where it exists, seems to provide almost no context to someone other than the original authors.

You posted this for a reason .. would be good to get your thoughts.

edit: adding one more point. I went to a fairly high-ranked university(top-20). We would get graded based on how clear our code was, comments (both for functions and inline comments). This code would get a zero on those metrics.

[emteycz]

Hmm... I can't see how the code is unreasonable, given the complexity of the task at hand. Could you tell me what could be improved about this code (code itself, not docs etc)?

[jcelerier]

just opened a file and...ugh

https://android.googlesource.com/platform/art/+/refs/heads/m...

like, just this, basically C:

    if (strncmp(argv[arg_idx], "-XXlib:", strlen("-XXlib:")) == 0) {
       ...

is just so complicated and error-prone over

    if(std::string_view{argv[arg_idx]}.starts_with("-XXlib:"))  
       ...

(which I guess is the intent)

[jmgao]

That code is older than C++11, let alone C++17. Also, your proposal isn't as efficient, since it calls strlen on construction of string_view (not that cost of parsing command line arguments is going to be measurable).

[jjnoakes]

> your proposal isn't as efficient, since it calls strlen on construction of string_view

The code it replaces also had a strlen in it.

[jmgao]

A strlen of a compile-time constant, which will certainly get turned into a constant by the compiler. It does not get the length of the input string.

[jjnoakes]

Why wouldn't the string_view constructor be inlined and get the same treatment?

[pjmlp]

Certainly isn't a fact unless proven by examining the generated machine code.

[ncmncm]

The code is ancient, and Google (like most) sees no value in modernizing old code, particularly for non-revenue-generating product. Furthermore, Google long ago locked themselves into an idiotically anti-RAII coding standard.

So, the example is of bad old code, at a place that enforces bad coding practice. The intent appears to be to suggest this is typical practice, which is not supported.

[pjmlp]

Google seats at ISO C++, is a major contributor to clang and LLVM, and belongs to the group of companies with largest C++ code in production.

If this what a company with deep roots in C++ world is doing, what are the large majority of "dark matter" software factories doing, specially the sweetshop ones.

[ncmncm]

A minuscule fraction of the people coding what they call C++ at Google come to the committee meetings. Google's ancient, idiotic prohibition on RAII is not a thing the current attendees, or other employees, have a say about. Many, attending or no, would rather be coding sensibly. And, in any case, the ancient code you present is not how code is being written even at Google today. So, your point is hopelessly muddled.

There are shops where people still write new C++ like it's 2011, or 2003, or 1998, or 1992, or C. There are plenty of shops where people code the best way their current production compiler allows. There are plenty where different people do some of each of those. Vanishingly few shops make an effort to rewrite ancient code according to current best practice.

I guess a sweetshop company is one with Oompa-loompas.

[pjmlp]

One day I would appreciate to know where that perfect C++ world of yours exist in real world.

I guess I need to catch up with some Twilight Zone episodes.

[still_grokking]

> just opened a file and...ugh

Looks just like regular PHP. So what's the point? Or did I miss something?

/s