Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> Compiler errors are not a replacement for linting.
> 
> Why not?  Since you are running lint you obviously want to catch these
> errors.  How would having this capability built into the compiler not
> solve the same problem and more simply.

Rather than saying "compiler errors", I think this should be "compiler
warnings". With this substitution, I agree.

>> Use a linter
> 
> The fact that lint even exists proof of inadequate compiler.

I think what you're seeing here is the Unix style of single-purpose
applications and tool chains rather than single, integrated tools.

A C compiler is (at least conceptually) not an end-to-end compiler that
receives source code and produces an executable (like e.g. Turbo Pascal
was). It is a tool chain that, at the minimum, includes a compiler and a
linker and which is typically controlled by a makefile (and the make
utility). In such a setup, adding a linter to the chain isn't anything that
would increase the complexity.

Seen from this angle, the linter's function is to make sure that everything
is according to your coding style. And the C compiler's function is to make
sure that everything is according to the C spec. And the linker's function
is to make sure everything needed is there and that a proper executable can
be created. Using the Unix application paradigm, this is not inadequate; it
is just how things are done.

Of course, many (especially Windows) setups are not like this. Make and
makefiles are replaced by compiler-built-in smarts, the different stages of
compiling and linking are hidden inside a single executable, the compiler
provides a number of warnings that have nothing to do with the C spec and
are moving towards linting... So why not build full-blown lint
functionality into the compiler?

Probably an economic decision, simply. It's not something that isn't there,
it's just not up to the same level in compilers as it is in dedicated
linters. It's the 80/20 rule at work: with the 20% of linting that are
built into the better compilers, they satisfy 80% of the users. To satisfy
the remaining 20%, they'd have to spend 5 times as much and implement the
remaining 80% of linting -- economically not attractive :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist