How do the Google style guides compare to the Qt style guide? Are they largely consistent?

I did not compare them thoroughly, but I would say they differ in naming conventions and they do more strictly enforce the rules at all (against Qt which says: follow the rules wherever you can, but feel free to break them here and then where it makes sense).

Personally, I really like the Qt convention that class names start with a capital, and method names with a lower case letter. That is different in the Google conventions.

As a real qt-e developer, I prefer this too, of course :-P

They’re a tad too strict for my taste. If you’re going to be telling people where to put their ++, you’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Good reading, but some points I’d rather to change…

For example:http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml?showone=Doing_Work_in_Constructors#Doing_Work_in_Constructors

As I am reading more, I am glad to we have Qt “style”…

Heh, back to good old plain C again:

Yes, yes…C# uses it too ((void) Init() functions)

Google Style Guide is too strict for me…

I think the Google style guide documents the exact mistake a lot of companies make when they are prescribing the style this specifically. Programmers are usually free form thinkers. Putting a too rigid harness on that free form thinking lets developers focus on form rather than on functionality, and frankly, I’d rather have a bit of functionality. If you want to restrict coding rigidly to a certain standard, use a language that isn’t as free form as C++.

@Franzk: I totally agree with you.

Franzk wrote:

Programmers are usually free form thinkers.

Volker, thanks for sharing! It is always good to know how leading companies work.

Andre wrote:

Personally, I really like the Qt convention that class names start with a capital, and method names with a lower case letter. That is different in the Google conventions.

Yes it is really nice, although I have to admit that I am still getting used to it :)

Franzk wrote:

I think the Google style guide documents the exact mistake a lot of companies make when they are prescribing the style this specifically. Programmers are usually free form thinkers. Putting a too rigid harness on that free form thinking lets developers focus on form rather than on functionality, and frankly, I’d rather have a bit of functionality. If you want to restrict coding rigidly to a certain standard, use a language that isn’t as free form as C++.

+1 :) Bull’s eye! :)

I prefer Unix or BSD style, it’s not so strict as Google has…

Joke:

But the best thing that they wrote, was: http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml?showone=C++0x#C++0x
“ Decision: Use only C++0x libraries and language features that have been approved for use. Currently, no such features are approved. Features will be approved individually as appropriate.”
How can I use C++0x (as it Google said), if there is just specification out?? Think smarter and you’ll get nonsense of using this Google Style :D

Preliminary implementations, which is why no libraries at all are approved. But one can hardly expect the trailing comma in enumerators to be a library function.

I wonder, do trolls have analog cpplint.py?:)

http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Inline_Functions

Does Qt encourage inline functions inside the library which can be called from user code ? I guess it could cause binary incompatibilities if definition of inline function changes between library versions.