Do you code like NASA?

why not?

rankred.com/nasa-coding-rules/

Other urls found in this thread:

google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

any other org/company coding rules?

Why is there not a women on that picture?

DELET

No large functions is particularly interesting to me and a particularly easy rule to break.

It would likely require constantly breaking larger functions into smaller ones as development progresses, but I think would ultimately make for code that is much easier to debug and understand.

feels like coding for an arduino

Some of the rules are good.

Some of the rules are good only for mission critical software.

Yeah, this government contractor I work for follows most of the rules NASA employs.

>Do not use ... direct or indirect recursion.
I understand the reasoning but I disagree. Because of that you can't have any recursive data structure, not even a linked list or a tree, or anything that contains a recursive part.

>No Dynamic Memory Allocation
That sounds difficult. I'd be interested to know how to work without dynamic memory at all.

>#define assert
fucking cancer

Recursive data structures can and should be implemented iteratively, performance for recursion is pretty bad.

>No Dynamic Memory Allocation
this is a matter of things that are mission critical

imagine you die because pajeet didn't wanna deal with checking everything and thought 'well the garbage collector will clean up anything I fucked up so its fine'

>C
no wonder they're not getting shit done

You should be using a compiler/language that can and does support tail call optimization. Thinking for iterative is pretty restricted.

>I'd be interested to know how to work without dynamic memory at all.
No heap, registers & stack only, Final Destination.

No it's not, if the data structure can't be implemented iteratively, you shouldn't be using it anyways.

>No Code of Conduct

trash

People like you are why we're still fucking stuck with ALGOL-derived languages for high level programming when it's fucking retarded.

NASA has an insanely good record compared to the other space agencies when it comes to success of outer solar system probes. NASA has not failed a mission to the outer solar system in nearly a decade

the reason they don't actually get shit done is the fact that they depend on government funding

>why not?
Because I don't work at NASA.

why don't you work at NASA user? Are you not smart enough?

ye

me neither

I really wish normies had never gotten into computing.

they still aren't, they are just the retards at jobs where you come in and fix everything they've touched, replace all their code, and then leave. They are the ones who make endless documentation changes on github, code style changes, and push for codes of conduct while never fixing anything or adding new features beyond visuals.

Found the cocky CS guy who wants everyone to spend decades trying to decipher his Haskell cause he wrote it and it must be good.

You think NASA lets CS majors write code for them?

I heard engineers program like retards and their style and form are shit

google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html

>indent with 2 spaces
>} else {

>why not?
Most of their rules are sound and make sense. However,

>Rule No. 3 – No Dynamic Memory Allocation
This is a sound rule when you make mission critical code for embedded systems being shot into space that needs to be verified and proven correct, but it's not sound as a global rule.

>Rule No. 4 – No Large Functions
Not even Linux would pass this one, it's pretty common in Linux with large functions. The TCP output engine, for example, has a function that's over 1500 lines long.

However, in general, this rule is sound and should be followed.

Seems good. Especially the short functions.

Linux isn't exactly a pristine example.

No, but I used it as an example because it's frequently used on embedded platforms.