If the content of this website has been useful, please consider a contribution. Thank you for taking the time to donate.
|Cost of hosting this website||100 USD|
|Total donations till date||25 USD|
Header files are just a part and parcel of the C/C++ programming language. However, the number of header file includes go out of control very quickly. In most C/C++ based projects, maintaining minimal or optimal header includes is a challenge. Sooner or later, you will find many unnecessary header includes in the source files.
This causes a few problems.
There are free tools2 to identify dependencies but reducing the superfluous dependencies is a painful manual task. Then there are some expensive heavy duty tools. This however, is a simple and free alternative, not perfect but quite effective.
It’s a brute force method which leverages the compiler to identify true dependencies. For each file, it comments out an include and builds the project. If it builds successfully, it is assumed that the header is not required. If the build fails, the include in uncommented (and built again as a sanity check). It is recommended to run it on all on the
.h first and then the
The script files can be accessed from GitHub at https://github.com/cognitivewaves/misc/tree/master/check-header-includes.
As mentioned earlier, it’s not perfect, as it does not identify changes in behavior due to the order of an “unnecessary” header. E.g.There may be subtle changes in behavior if you have some macros redefined differently depending on some #ifdefs from a previous header identified as “not required”. However, it is nice to have a tool which gets rid of the “obvious” and “silly” superfluous dependencies. So it is best to review the identified unnecessary headers before committing it.
Currently, the script works only on Windows using Visual Studio projects. But it is easy enough to replicate it on Linux and other compilers.
If you ever have to work on a Linux system, it is well advised to have a basic knowledge of using the vi editor. This is not be confused with the editor war. Here I’m only highlighting the practical benefits of being familiar with vi.
As much as new users find it painful, some users get along fine with
vi in small doses. For those coming from a Windows background, learning vi/Vim by comparison with a typical GUI text editor is recommended.
Note that vi and Vim are not the same. When possible, install
Vim (Vi IMproved) which is an additional package. It is more “user friendly” than standard
Most people, including myself, agree to the idea of our shared responsibility towards the systems and software that are made available to us for “free”. We all understand that there is cost (monetary, manpower, administration, etc.) and hence it is not free in the true sense. Someone, somewhere is paying for it. Someone has taken up the burden of our missing contribution, however minuscule it may be.
Yet, when it comes to acting on it, we defer, procrastinate and finally pass on it, expecting and hoping that someone else will sustain it. I was no exception. I would go places, spend on food and drinks which was more expensive that it was worth, but didn’t make the much needed contribution. It is not that the monetary contribution has to be much and yet we don’t. This is bystander apathy, a very regressive attitude for a society.
Finally in November 2013, I committed myself to make a contribution as little as USD 5 to a few of the software123 that I use regularly. I did not go bankrupt (obviously) and life is better now that I have fulfilled my shared responsibility. Having taken that first step, I am now committed to contributing every year.
If everyone reading this chipped in $3, we would be supported for another year – Mozilla Firefox
If all our past donors simply gave again today, we wouldn’t have to worry about fundraising for the rest of the year – Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia
I promise you, take that first step and make that contribution. It will give you a sense of satisfaction.
You buy “stuff”1 everyday. Some are essential, but many others that you probably don’t need. In any case, imagine two scenarios.
You go to a store to buy and like the look and feel of it. You pick it up and head out of the store. No payment, no receipt, no credit card swipe. Then one day, when you have used it enough and feel that it was worth it, you pay for it, and you pay what you think it was worth. No price tag, no time limits, no collection calls, just your moral obligation.
You are enticed, cajoled, convinced or fooled into buying it. Pay for it upfront with limited warranty on the product, no guarantee of satisfaction and very few options of getting your money back.
Which one would you chose? Obviously scenario 1, isn’t it?
Not just because it is free until you decide to pay for it, but also because YOU are always in control.
Does it sound too idealistic? Are there even such products and services?
Yes, and many that you are likely using quite regularly too but may not even be aware of it.
Open source software is modeled exactly on the first scenario. Furthermore, many of these are ad-free. Do you rely on Wikipedia, or use Mozilla Firefox or prefer Linux (more accurately GNU/Linux) or any of the thousands of “free” software out there?
Such ecosystems can only exist and sustain with voluntary collective contributions. There are many ways to participate but financial contribution is important. The ball is in your court. Participate in any way possible and fulfill your shared responsibility.
From “The Ascent of Money” by Niall Ferguson
Availability Bias, which causes us to base decision on information that is more readily available in our memories, rather than the data we really need.
Hindsight bias, which causes us to attach higher probabilities to events after they have happened (ex post) than we did before they happened (ex ante).
The problem of induction, which leads us to formulation general rules on the basis of insufficient information.
The fallacy of conjunction (or disjunction), which means we tend to overestimate the probability that seven event of the 90 percent probability will all occur, while underestimating the probability that at least one of seven events of 10 percent probability will occur.
Confirmation bias, which inclines us to look for confirming evidence of an initial hypothesis, rather than falsifying evidence that would disprove it.
Contamination effects, whereby we allow irrelevant but promxiate information to influence a decision.
The affect heuristic, whereby preconceived value judgements interfere with our assessment of costs and benefits.
Scope neglect, which prevents us from proportionately adjusting what we should be willing to sacrifice to avoid harms of different orders of magnitude.
Overconfidence in calibration, which leads us to underestimate the confidence intervals within which our estimates will be robust (e.g.to conflate the ‘best case’ scenario with the ‘most probable’).
Bystander apathy, which inclines us to abdicate individual responsibility when in a crowd.