Google 公司的代码规范

　　如题： C++ , Objective-C , Java , Python , R , Shell , HTML/CSS , JavaScript , AngularJS , Common Lisp  ,Vimscript 语言，谷歌公司内部代码规范文档现在可以在GitHub上可以查阅了。

　　下面列出的是部分C++ 的代码规范，英文好的可以看看。下载地址：https://files.cnblogs.com/files/hutiann/cppguide.rar

Google C++ Style Guide

 

Background

C++ is one of the main development languages used by many of Google's open-source projects. As every C++ programmer knows, the language has many powerful features, but this power brings with it complexity, which in turn can make code more bug-prone and harder to read and maintain.

The goal of this guide is to manage this complexity by describing in detail the dos and don'ts of writing C++ code. These rules exist to keep the code base manageable while still allowing coders to use C++ language features productively.

Style, also known as readability, is what we call the conventions that govern our C++ code. The term Style is a bit of a misnomer, since these conventions cover far more than just source file formatting.

Most open-source projects developed by Google conform to the requirements in this guide.

Note that this guide is not a C++ tutorial: we assume that the reader is familiar with the language.

Goals of the Style Guide

Why do we have this document?

There are a few core goals that we believe this guide should serve. These are the fundamental whys that underlie all of the individual rules. By bringing these ideas to the fore, we hope to ground discussions and make it clearer to our broader community why the rules are in place and why particular decisions have been made. If you understand what goals each rule is serving, it should be clearer to everyone when a rule may be waived (some can be), and what sort of argument or alternative would be necessary to change a rule in the guide.

The goals of the style guide as we currently see them are as follows:

Style rules should pull their weight

The benefit of a style rule must be large enough to justify asking all of our engineers to remember it. The benefit is measured relative to the codebase we would get without the rule, so a rule against a very harmful practice may still have a small benefit if people are unlikely to do it anyway. This principle mostly explains the rules we don’t have, rather than the rules we do: for example, goto contravenes many of the following principles, but is already vanishingly rare, so the Style Guide doesn’t discuss it.

Optimize for the reader, not the writer

Our codebase (and most individual components submitted to it) is expected to continue for quite some time. As a result, more time will be spent reading most of our code than writing it. We explicitly choose to optimize for the experience of our average software engineer reading, maintaining, and debugging code in our codebase rather than ease when writing said code. "Leave a trace for the reader" is a particularly common sub-point of this principle: When something surprising or unusual is happening in a snippet of code (for example, transfer of pointer ownership), leaving textual hints for the reader at the point of use is valuable (std::unique_ptr demonstrates the ownership transfer unambiguously at the call site).

Be consistent with existing code

Using one style consistently through our codebase lets us focus on other (more important) issues. Consistency also allows for automation: tools that format your code or adjust your #includes only work properly when your code is consistent with the expectations of the tooling. In many cases, rules that are attributed to "Be Consistent" boil down to "Just pick one and stop worrying about it"; the potential value of allowing flexibility on these points is outweighed by the cost of having people argue over them.

Be consistent with the broader C++ community when appropriate

Consistency with the way other organizations use C++ has value for the same reasons as consistency within our code base. If a feature in the C++ standard solves a problem, or if some idiom is widely known and accepted, that's an argument for using it. However, sometimes standard features and idioms are flawed, or were just designed without our codebase's needs in mind. In those cases (as described below) it's appropriate to constrain or ban standard features. In some cases we prefer a homegrown or third-party library over a library defined in the C++ Standard, either out of perceived superiority or insufficient value to transition the codebase to the standard interface.

Avoid surprising or dangerous constructs

C++ has features that are more surprising or dangerous than one might think at a glance. Some style guide restrictions are in place to prevent falling into these pitfalls. There is a high bar for style guide waivers on such restrictions, because waiving such rules often directly risks compromising program correctness.

Avoid constructs that our average C++ programmer would find tricky or hard to maintain

C++ has features that may not be generally appropriate because of the complexity they introduce to the code. In widely used code, it may be more acceptable to use trickier language constructs, because any benefits of more complex implementation are multiplied widely by usage, and the cost in understanding the complexity does not need to be paid again when working with new portions of the codebase. When in doubt, waivers to rules of this type can be sought by asking your project leads. This is specifically important for our codebase because code ownership and team membership changes over time: even if everyone that works with some piece of code currently understands it, such understanding is not guaranteed to hold a few years from now.

Be mindful of our scale

With a codebase of 100+ million lines and thousands of engineers, some mistakes and simplifications for one engineer can become costly for many. For instance it's particularly important to avoid polluting the global namespace: name collisions across a codebase of hundreds of millions of lines are difficult to work with and hard to avoid if everyone puts things into the global namespace.

Concede to optimization when necessary

Performance optimizations can sometimes be necessary and appropriate, even when they conflict with the other principles of this document.

The intent of this document is to provide maximal guidance with reasonable restriction. As always, common sense and good taste should prevail. By this we specifically refer to the established conventions of the entire Google C++ community, not just your personal preferences or those of your team. Be skeptical about and reluctant to use clever or unusual constructs: the absence of a prohibition is not the same as a license to proceed. Use your judgment, and if you are unsure, please don't hesitate to ask your project leads to get additional input.