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)?
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/art/+/refs/heads/m...
like, just this, basically C:
if (strncmp(argv[arg_idx], "-XXlib:", strlen("-XXlib:")) == 0) {
...
if(std::string_view{argv[arg_idx]}.starts_with("-XXlib:"))
...
The code it replaces also had a strlen in it.
(not OP). I examine the output if someone tells me it's slower, or if I care about performance. I did a very rough benchmark which says in this case they're equivalent [0], however that's not necessarily representative of the places it's called in. There's definitely a compile time overhead though [1]. On my current project there's ~20k files. On an 8 core machine (as an example), adding 150ms per file would add 7 minutes onto a clean build (before optimising the builds).
[0] https://quick-bench.com/q/LBarCDIigwpmXcwZSx-RgV2x4_4 [1] https://build-bench.com/b/OH8qf9AgEB_l-BhANV5qP_uSCys
So you either validate it actually takes place or believe in fairy tales.
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.
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.
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.
I guess I need to catch up with some Twilight Zone episodes.
Looks just like regular PHP. So what's the point? Or did I miss something?
/s