Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #68301 > unrolled thread

Project review

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Project review woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-10 20:00 -0700
    Re: Project review Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-09-10 23:38 -0700
      Re: Project review woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-11 19:44 -0700
        Re: Project review Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-09-11 23:10 -0700
          Re: Project review woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-12 09:36 -0700
            Re: Project review scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-12 17:06 +0000
              Re: Project review woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-12 10:53 -0700
                Re: Project review scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-12 20:03 +0000
                  Re: Project review "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-09-12 16:14 -0400
                  Re: Project review Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-13 15:31 +1200
                    Re: Project review David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-13 09:29 +0200
                      Re: Project review Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-13 19:45 +1200
                        Re: Project review David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-13 10:22 +0200
                      Re: Project review scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-13 13:07 +0000
                        Re: Project review David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-13 15:30 +0200
                    Re: Project review Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-09-13 14:18 +0100
                      Re: Project review woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-13 07:32 -0700
                        Re: Project review David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-14 13:34 +0200
            Re: Project review Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-09-12 23:28 -0700
              Re: Project review woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-13 21:21 -0700
    Re: Project review Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-09-11 15:49 +0100
      Re: Project review rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-09-11 08:08 -0700
        Re: Project review Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-09-11 17:17 +0100
    Re: Project review Szyk Cech <szykcech@spoko.pl> - 2019-09-12 20:22 +0200
      Re: Project review Szyk Cech <szykcech@spoko.pl> - 2019-09-12 20:24 +0200
      Re: Project review woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-12 17:53 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#68301 — Project review

   Shalom

This is my messaging/serialization project:

https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards


One area I've not made much progress with is
continuous integration.  I've looked at Circleci
and Codeship and some others, but so far haven't
found one that's free and easy to use.

Thanks in advance for your constructive comments.



Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again.
http://webEbenezer.net

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#68302

On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 06:00:22 UTC+3, woodb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
> One area I've not made much progress with is
> continuous integration.  I've looked at Circleci
> and Codeship and some others, but so far haven't
> found one that's free and easy to use.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your constructive comments.

TeamCity has likely best GitHub integration.
Other popular choices are Bamboo, Hudson and Jenkins.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68348

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 1:39:06 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> 
> TeamCity has likely best GitHub integration.
> Other popular choices are Bamboo, Hudson and Jenkins.

I want a hosted CI service.  It seems like TeamCity, 
Bamboo and Jenkins don't do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68352

On Thursday, 12 September 2019 05:44:19 UTC+3, woodb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 1:39:06 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > 
> > TeamCity has likely best GitHub integration.
> > Other popular choices are Bamboo, Hudson and Jenkins.
> 
> I want a hosted CI service.  It seems like TeamCity, 
> Bamboo and Jenkins don't do that.

Why should anyone want to provide service that compiles your crap
and runs your unit tests on each commit for free?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68364

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 September 2019 05:44:19 UTC+3, woodb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > 
> > I want a hosted CI service.  It seems like TeamCity, 
> > Bamboo and Jenkins don't do that.
> 
> Why should anyone want to provide service that compiles your crap
> and runs your unit tests on each commit for free?

It's not crap.  It's increasingly robust and flexible 
software with a business plan behind it.  T. Boone
Pickens passed on yesterday.  He used to say: A fool with
a plan can beat a genius with no plan.  

I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for 
the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions 
of my executables to date.

Services are often free in order to garner users.  Often
though they are only free for the first 30 days or so.  The
C++ Middleware Writer is free without limits like that.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - "America isn't great because America
is powerful.  America is powerful because America is great."  
                           Ben Shapiro at dailywire.com
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68365

woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6 Tiib wrot=

>I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>of my executables to date.

Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
either useful or interesting?

Run-time memory usage, now _that_ matters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68366

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
> >On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6 Tiib wrot=
> 
> >I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
> >the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
> >of my executables to date.
> 
> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
> either useful or interesting?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8

I was already doing that before I watched that.



Brian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68369

woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>> >On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6 Tiib wrot=
>> 
>> >I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>> >the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>> >of my executables to date.
>> 
>> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
>> either useful or interesting?
>
>https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8

If you can't explain it in your own words, fine.  I've no interest
in watching some random video.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68370

On 9/12/2019 4:03 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6 Tiib wrot=
>>>
>>>> I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>>>> the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>>>> of my executables to date.
>>>
>>> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
>>> either useful or interesting?
>>
>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8
> 
> If you can't explain it in your own words, fine.  I've no interest
> in watching some random video.

But you do have interest in commenting on it just to be mean to Brian?
Have you ever considered what you're actually doing with your life,
Scott?  This really is your footprint on the world.  You really are
hurting people and being mean to them.

So, you have no interest in learning and growing and sharing in someone
like Brian's life, but you do automatically have much interest in being
mean to him, and writing things that hurt and harm people on the inside?
(based on a sampling of your many posts this is a sane conclusion)

It's no way to be.  And it speaks volumes of the view of self you possess.

You are better than you think you are, Scott.  You don't need to be mean
to people to make yourself feel better.  You don't need to drag people
down and put them under your heel to have worth and value in this world.
You are valuable in your own person, by your own abilities.  You can be
nice and helpful to people and make yourself feel better.

You should try it sometime.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68377

On 13/09/2019 08:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6 Tiib wrot=
>>>
>>>> I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>>>> the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>>>> of my executables to date.
>>>
>>> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
>>> either useful or interesting?
>>
>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8
> 
> If you can't explain it in your own words, fine.  I've no interest
> in watching some random video
The video is interesting and probably (it's a presentation by Mark Zeren 
from VmWare) relevant to your work.  He does make a strong case for 
measuring executable size as a measure of code complexity.  Saying that, 
it has no relevance to comparative compiler code sizes...

-- 
Ian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68379

On 13/09/2019 05:31, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 13/09/2019 08:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal
>>> wrote:
>>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6
>>>>> Tiib wrot=
>>>>
>>>>> I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>>>>> the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>>>>> of my executables to date.
>>>>
>>>> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
>>>> either useful or interesting?
>>>
>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8
>>>
>>
>> If you can't explain it in your own words, fine.  I've no interest
>> in watching some random video
> The video is interesting and probably (it's a presentation by Mark Zeren
> from VmWare) relevant to your work.  He does make a strong case for
> measuring executable size as a measure of code complexity.  Saying that,
> it has no relevance to comparative compiler code sizes...
> 

Scott did not say the video was not interesting or relevant - he said he
had no interest in watching an unknown video link.  Remember who posted
that link - /I/ certainly would not bother clicking on it, given Brian's
history.

What Brian should have done is answered Scott's question:

"""
I think executable size is important because it gives better I-cache hit
rates, or because it makes coverage testing easier, or because my
customers have dial-up modems, etc.  This video by famous person Mark
Zeren from VmWare explains more:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGV5u1nxqd8>
"""

(Note the link is the proper link, not an advert for Brian's favourite
search engine.)


Personally, I still wouldn't watch the video, because I don't find video
to be a useful medium for that kind of thing.  But that's just me -
other people like them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68380

On 13/09/2019 19:29, David Brown wrote:
> On 13/09/2019 05:31, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 13/09/2019 08:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6
>>>>>> Tiib wrot=
>>>>>
>>>>>> I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>>>>>> the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>>>>>> of my executables to date.
>>>>>
>>>>> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
>>>>> either useful or interesting?
>>>>
>>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you can't explain it in your own words, fine.  I've no interest
>>> in watching some random video
>> The video is interesting and probably (it's a presentation by Mark Zeren
>> from VmWare) relevant to your work.  He does make a strong case for
>> measuring executable size as a measure of code complexity.  Saying that,
>> it has no relevance to comparative compiler code sizes...
>>
> 
> Scott did not say the video was not interesting or relevant - he said he
> had no interest in watching an unknown video link.

Did I say otherwise?

-- 
Ian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68382

On 13/09/2019 09:45, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 13/09/2019 19:29, David Brown wrote:
>> On 13/09/2019 05:31, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2019 08:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6
>>>>>>> Tiib wrot=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>>>>>>> the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>>>>>>> of my executables to date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
>>>>>> either useful or interesting?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you can't explain it in your own words, fine.  I've no interest
>>>> in watching some random video
>>> The video is interesting and probably (it's a presentation by Mark Zeren
>>> from VmWare) relevant to your work.  He does make a strong case for
>>> measuring executable size as a measure of code complexity.  Saying that,
>>> it has no relevance to comparative compiler code sizes...
>>>
>>
>> Scott did not say the video was not interesting or relevant - he said he
>> had no interest in watching an unknown video link.
> 
> Did I say otherwise?
> 

No.  My post was as much to Brian and Rick as to you, but I didn't want
to reply to everyone.  My apologies if it looked like I was criticising
you.  Probably it would have made more sense for my post to be a reply
to Brian's post than to yours.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68383

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>On 13/09/2019 05:31, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 13/09/2019 08:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6
>>>>>> Tiib wrot=
>>>>>
>>>>>> I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>>>>>> the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>>>>>> of my executables to date.
>>>>>
>>>>> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
>>>>> either useful or interesting?
>>>>
>>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you can't explain it in your own words, fine.  I've no interest
>>> in watching some random video
>> The video is interesting and probably (it's a presentation by Mark Zeren
>> from VmWare) relevant to your work.  He does make a strong case for
>> measuring executable size as a measure of code complexity.  Saying that,
>> it has no relevance to comparative compiler code sizes...
>> 
>
>Scott did not say the video was not interesting or relevant - he said he
>had no interest in watching an unknown video link.  Remember who posted
>that link - /I/ certainly would not bother clicking on it, given Brian's
>history.

That's certainly part of it.   I can also read and absorb text much faster
than plowing through some interminable video presentation.

And in some working enviroments, I don't have the ability to view video.

>
>What Brian should have done is answered Scott's question:
>
>"""
>I think executable size is important because it gives better I-cache hit

The relationship between executable size (presuming that any cruft like
exception tables, debug symbol tables, run-time loader symbol tables, .rodata, .data,
rtti tables, etc. are not considered when calculating executable size) and i-cache hit
rate is minor, if it exists at all.    Far more important is the size
of the text section 'working set' (to borrow from the old VAX days).  There
may be a zillion pages of infrequently used text, which will never get
into the Icache at all during normal program operation.




>
>Personally, I still wouldn't watch the video, because I don't find video
>to be a useful medium for that kind of thing.  But that's just me -
>other people like them.

I'm with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68386

On 13/09/2019 15:07, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 13/09/2019 05:31, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2019 08:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6
>>>>>>> Tiib wrot=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>>>>>>> the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>>>>>>> of my executables to date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
>>>>>> either useful or interesting?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you can't explain it in your own words, fine.  I've no interest
>>>> in watching some random video
>>> The video is interesting and probably (it's a presentation by Mark Zeren
>>> from VmWare) relevant to your work.  He does make a strong case for
>>> measuring executable size as a measure of code complexity.  Saying that,
>>> it has no relevance to comparative compiler code sizes...
>>>
>>
>> Scott did not say the video was not interesting or relevant - he said he
>> had no interest in watching an unknown video link.  Remember who posted
>> that link - /I/ certainly would not bother clicking on it, given Brian's
>> history.
> 
> That's certainly part of it.   I can also read and absorb text much faster
> than plowing through some interminable video presentation.
> 
> And in some working enviroments, I don't have the ability to view video.
> 
>>
>> What Brian should have done is answered Scott's question:
>>
>> """
>> I think executable size is important because it gives better I-cache hit
> 
> The relationship between executable size (presuming that any cruft like
> exception tables, debug symbol tables, run-time loader symbol tables, .rodata, .data,
> rtti tables, etc. are not considered when calculating executable size) and i-cache hit
> rate is minor, if it exists at all.    Far more important is the size
> of the text section 'working set' (to borrow from the old VAX days).  There
> may be a zillion pages of infrequently used text, which will never get
> into the Icache at all during normal program operation.

Yes, I know that - I was guessing at some reasons people might have for
preferring small executable sizes.  (There are times when there are
other good reasons, of course - in my business, it is often important to
have small total executable size.)  I don't know why Brian thinks it is
an important metric for his code - but I'd be interested to hear his
reasoning.

> 
>>
>> Personally, I still wouldn't watch the video, because I don't find video
>> to be a useful medium for that kind of thing.  But that's just me -
>> other people like them.
> 
> I'm with you.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68385

On 13/09/2019 04:31, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 13/09/2019 08:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal 
>>> wrote:
>>>> woodbrian77@gmail.com writes:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, =C3=96=C3=B6 
>>>>> Tiib wrot=
>>>>
>>>>> I built my software yesterday on Linux 5 with Gcc 9.2 for=20
>>>>> the first time.  This combo produced the smallest versions=20
>>>>> of my executables to date.
>>>>
>>>> Executable size is a useless metric.  Why do you think it is
>>>> either useful or interesting?
>>>
>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8 
>>>
>>
>> If you can't explain it in your own words, fine.  I've no interest
>> in watching some random video
> The video is interesting and probably (it's a presentation by Mark Zeren 
> from VmWare) relevant to your work.  He does make a strong case for 
> measuring executable size as a measure of code complexity.  Saying that, 
> it has no relevance to comparative compiler code sizes...

Executable size is a measure of how much text is in the text segment and 
how much data in the data segments only, it is NOT a measure of code 
complexity at all.

/Flibble

-- 
“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais
“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who 
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” 
– Ricky Gervais
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are 
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What 
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery 
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates 
a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68389

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 8:18:54 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 13/09/2019 04:31, Ian Collins wrote:
> > The video is interesting and probably (it's a presentation by Mark Zeren 
> > from VmWare) relevant to your work.  He does make a strong case for 
> > measuring executable size as a measure of code complexity.  Saying that, 
> > it has no relevance to comparative compiler code sizes...
> 
> Executable size is a measure of how much text is in the text segment and 
> how much data in the data segments only, it is NOT a measure of code 
> complexity at all.
> 

Yeah.  If a refactoring leads to a smaller binary size and 
fewer lines of code, I'll probably use it.


Brian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68410

On 13/09/2019 16:32, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 8:18:54 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 13/09/2019 04:31, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> The video is interesting and probably (it's a presentation by Mark Zeren 
>>> from VmWare) relevant to your work.  He does make a strong case for 
>>> measuring executable size as a measure of code complexity.  Saying that, 
>>> it has no relevance to comparative compiler code sizes...
>>
>> Executable size is a measure of how much text is in the text segment and 
>> how much data in the data segments only, it is NOT a measure of code 
>> complexity at all.
>>
> 
> Yeah.  If a refactoring leads to a smaller binary size and 
> fewer lines of code, I'll probably use it.
> 

The size of the final binary is only loosely correlated with the size of
the source code.  And the size of the source code is only loosely
correlated with the complexity of the source code.

Executable size may be a useful metric in some circumstances, but it is
not in itself a useful indicator of code complexity.  (Nor is code
complexity a particularly useful metric either.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68378

On Thursday, 12 September 2019 19:37:04 UTC+3, woodb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Thursday, 12 September 2019 05:44:19 UTC+3, woodb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > > 
> > > I want a hosted CI service.  It seems like TeamCity, 
> > > Bamboo and Jenkins don't do that.
> > 
> > Why should anyone want to provide service that compiles your crap
> > and runs your unit tests on each commit for free?
> 
> It's not crap. 

Fine, that is orthogonal issue anyway.

> Services are often free in order to garner users.  Often
> though they are only free for the first 30 days or so.

It is because continuous integration is not something that
we "use". It automates tedious tasks in development process.
On ideal case fully. Set up and forget. So there are no much
opportunities even to show ads to users of good CI.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68405

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 1:29:07 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 September 2019 19:37:04 UTC+3, woodb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 1:10:32 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 12 September 2019 05:44:19 UTC+3, woodb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I want a hosted CI service.  It seems like TeamCity, 
> > > > Bamboo and Jenkins don't do that.
> > > 
> > > Why should anyone want to provide service that compiles your crap
> > > and runs your unit tests on each commit for free?
> > 
> > It's not crap. 
> 
> Fine, that is orthogonal issue anyway.
> 
> > Services are often free in order to garner users.  Often
> > though they are only free for the first 30 days or so.
> 
> It is because continuous integration is not something that
> we "use". It automates tedious tasks in development process.
> On ideal case fully. Set up and forget. So there are no much
> opportunities even to show ads to users of good CI.

They can have ads on their documentation.  Also if your
build fails and you click on their page to find out more
info....  

Ebenezer ads are better than other ads.  I put ads at the 
bottom of the page rather than the top or side.  That's
less intrusive.  

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp_questions/comments/d3bcgl/what_continuous_integration_to_use/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web