A few hours after I posted about the email I got from CPPDepend, I received this response:
Hello, I read your interesting feedback about our product posted in your blog, and what can I confirm is: - It's not a spam, this mail was sent to only 3 people, that we consider they have a good Objective-C skill to have their valluable feedbacks. - You are right some effort must be done for OCDepend in our website. - Maybe I'm wrong but I dont think that OCDepend features exist in XCode, for example CQLinq is a powerful tool to request code base and enforce its quality. If you have time to test the product it will help us a lot to improve the product, Best Regards. Dane.
Here is my response:
Please note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I have also posted this response on my blog for my readers to see.
First, I’d like to say that I’m impressed. Not everyone would bother to take the time to respond to comments like the ones I made, and considering how “form letter” the first email was, I’m doubly gratified to see a personally addressed response the second time around.
I’m still somewhat troubled that the original email read very much like marketing spam. Thank you for contacting me and for considering my opinion valuable, but in my opinion, sending a generic email that doesn’t say anything about why I’m receiving it or give me any sense that it was even intended for me is a very poor way to ask me to review your product. Since you did take the time to respond to me, however, I will offer these additional thoughts:
The value of the pro license you offered in your first email, USD $500, is by itself something I would not recommend to any Objective-C developer in the first place. Mac developers, particularly the smaller ones like myself, are not as used to such high-cost licensing schemes as you’ve probably come to expect from your Windows customers. I certainly wouldn’t consider buying something that expensive unless I had very certain and solid proof that it was going to save me a significant amount of time over the tools Xcode already provides.
Without actually looking at the product itself (and I’ll emphasize to other readers, I have not looked at OCDepend itself and can offer no direct judgements about it), I have browsed your website considerably, and I have to say again: It is entirely lacking. As a developer, I read the phrase “CppDepend and OCDepend are based on Clang for more reliability.” and immediately dismiss it as nonsense. It turns me off, severely so. Basing something on Clang does not intrinsically make it reliable; it only means you have access to the exact same system upon which modern versions of Xcode are built! And Xcode itself shows that it’s extremely possible to be based on Clang and still be horribly unreliable.
Your cited feature that makes OCDepend so much better than Xcode is this “CQLinq” language that allows for querying of my code. To what end, exactly? To “request code base”? Assuming I understand your intended meaning, this means I can get information about my code in query-language form. I presume “enforce its quality” refers to something like putting this query language in a Git commit hook or other such script to check that conventions are being followed. Your website cites CQLinq as being “for maximum flexibility”, which is meaningless if it’s actually your flagship feature; that phrase makes it sound more like an add-on for advanced users. I don’t mean to make light of your English, and if I’m doing so, I apologize, but I can’t see what this feature is meant to do for me. Your website gives the following example:
from m in Application.Methods where m.NbLinesOfCode > 30 && m.IsPublic select m
Which returns all public methods longer than 30 lines of code. So, I have to learn a new domain-specific language applicable solely to your product in order to do something that’s ill-defined at best to begin with. What is a line of code? Do blank lines count? Lines consisting only of an opening or closing brace? Comments? Preprocessor macros? Macros that delete code under certain conditions? To say nothing of the fact that Objective-C doesn’t have the concept of non-public methods.
CppDepend also advertises its ability to compare builds. Any developer who needs to do this is almost certainly already using Git or Mercurial (or some other VCS) to do so for free. For tracking builds in the wild there are such tools as HockeyApp, Crashlytics, and TestFlight. CppDepend’s dependency graphing already exists in Xcode, and quite frankly, most of its other features for code quality look like something of interest purely to managers more concerned with metrics than functionality. No developers with whom I’ve ever personally worked in Objective-C (my personal experience only, that of others will almost certainly differ) have worried about metrics like these. They’re more the subject of The Daily WTF articles!
In summation, from what I can see without downloading your product, I can’t imagine I’d ever give it a second glance. It is obviously true that my experience may be atypical, that there may be much more useful features in your product that are not listed on your website, that I’m simply in a bad mood today, or any number of other explanations for my disinterest. I remain very much open to being proven wrong, and I look forward to that possibility, but as it stands I could not recommend this product to anybody (again, for those others reading, I haven’t in fact downloaded it at all, so take it with a grain of salt). I would see the price tag and immediately veer towards the tools I already have unless yours could quickly and convincingly show me that it was better for the job.
— Gwynne Raskind