The OCDepend saga continuums

No, the title isn’t a typo. Kudos to those who get the reference.

I received yet another response from the people at CPPDepend, and this one was both detailed and featured consideration of each of the objections I outlined in my previous posts. I am again impressed with their communication.

While I still can’t recommend the product, I’d like my readers to consider that my lack of recommendation is purely a personal choice on my part not to make use of this kind of tool, and I have no complaints left about their presentation that they haven’t addressed. I haven’t looked at the tool and I’m not qualified to say whether it’s good or bad. In short, I encourage people to look at it for themselves and make their own decision.

Come to think of it, I always encouraged that, I just had a stronger opinion of my own before. I don’t have it anymore, so just in case anyone was crazy enough to listen to me, stop it! :) I’m actually gratified to see a company out there that pays attention to and answers complaints like mine.

Obligatory disclaimer: I have received no compensation, monetary or otherwise, for posting this article, blah blah blah blah blah something something something.

One thought on “The OCDepend saga continuums

  1. Rui Figueira

    I bought CPPDepend some time ago, when version 3 came out, and I can tell it’s an amazing tool.
    Version 2 used doxygen as a backend, which caused some problems. Version 3 uses clang as a backend, so it’s way better.
    I used it extensively while working on APB Reloaded, to help me understand code I was not familiar with, or to think about implications of refactoring something. :)
    Customer support is always fast to respond to any emails.
    Since they use clang, it makes sense to also support Objective-C. Maybe that explains why there hasn’t been any CPPDepend updates recently. They’re probably busy with OCDepend then.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.