Skip to main content

C++ sucks part one

This is going to be too much to fit in one post. So lets start with the most provocative.

I'm over Constructors and Deconstructors

It's such a staple of OOP and yet I could seriously do without them now. If you're like me you learned these are great places to create/delete required objects, open/close files and all that stuff. But it just causes trouble.

Here's a typical example:

MyObject()
{
anotherObject = new AnotherObject();
fileHandle = open("configfile.xml");
}
~MyObject()
{
close(fileHandle);
delete anotherObject;
}


Great! What could be wrong with that? We'll there's two things.

1. You want to customise things in a child class
Ideally you shouldn't need to mess with the parent. Maybe due to some rules on shared code you can't change the parent (easily). But if you want anotherObject to be CustomObject and use a different filename you end up with this crap:

MyObjectChild() : MyObject()
{
delete anotherObject;
anotherObject = new CustomObject();
close(fileHandle);
fileHandle = open("myfile.xml");
}

Ugh. It's terrible! You'd never do this on a normal 'virtual' function. You'd just not call the parent. But with a constructor and deconstructor you don't have a choice.

2. You're running unit tests
Don't tell me you're not writing tests! But you don't want the object opening a file. That means you have to mess with a file just to run a test case. And perhaps CustomObject does stuff you don't want too. But you can't change it to never construct. Both will happen no matter what you try and do with a child class. So you're in the shit now.

So what can you do?
I'm half tempted to replace my constructors with a macro (except they're evil) as they are all starting to look like this:

MyObject(AnotherObject * _anotherObject, int _fileHandle) :
anotherObject(_anotherObject),
fileHandle(_fileHandle)
{
}

There's times when the construction order wont let you do that. But then you have to pass in a factory object and that can open a whole new can of worms.

Most of these problems are common to OO languages. But it's just one reason why C++ sucks.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Setting up Fitnesse on Ubuntu in 7 steps

Some pretty basic steps but just to make sure it's here for everyone to see. Setting up fitnesse and running the jar is easy enough. Just go to http://fitnesse.org/ and get started and do it on your desktop just to see it in action. But for me that wasn't good enough I wanted it to run as service on ubuntu. I stole a few tricks from how ubuntu runs jenkins and setup fitnesse a similar way. 1. Create a user and group for fitnesse (optional) I didn't do this because I wanted tomcat, jenkins and fitnesse all running as the same user. Call it laziness to avoid any permissions classing but it doesn't change the process that you need to create or choose what user you're going to make it run as. Don't make it run as your user or root! 2. Download the jar file and place it in /usr/share/fitnesse Make the folder too of course. It can belong to root as long as the fitnesse user has read access 3. Create the folder to run in at /var/lib/fitnesse Fitnesse user needs...

RestFixture

So most of the tests I'm writing now in Fitnesse are using RestFixture . Being able to do all this black box style testing has helped me get a lot of tests up and running without having to change the existing code base. Now I've taken a step future with my own little fork  so I can use scenarios and build nice BDD style scripts. But first I want to give me own quick guide to using RestFixture Step 1: Installing You can dive straight in by grabbing the latest jar files for RestFixture here  https://github.com/smartrics/RestFixture/downloads If you know what you're doing can get the nodep version to work nicely along side other libraries you may be including in Fitnesse. But I grabbed the 'full' version and unzipped it into a RestFixture folder alongside my FitNesseRoot folder. Step 2: Write your first test I took advantage of the built in Fitnesse api as a basic test and wrote a page called RestFixture with the following contents !define TEST_SYSTEM {slim} !...

Are mocks/fakes reusuable?

Programming 101 states: Don't copy and paste code. If you find yourself doing something repetitive then do it right so you can reuse the same code. Functions, classes and even separate files all serve this end. Now that I'm writing tests all the time I often find myself creating Mocks. Mocks are where you tell code to use a pretend version of some functionality instead of the real one. It could be because the real one does something you don't want in your tests (writes files, reads a database) or it could be that you've got some messy legacy code you can't to pull into your tests (yet). There's other reasons too but you get the idea. So if I make a Mock version of a class it makes sense to try and share that with everyone else that might be trying to test with that same class. Or does it? That assumption has some serious flaws that I'm only now starting to understand. And here's a few: Behaviour you need to test may be completely different to the next gu...