[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:54:34 +0200
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Musl-extra: C general-purpose and utility library
On 9/19/12 10:38 AM, Arvid E. Picciani wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:31:47 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think a clean, sane, bloat-free implementation of the
>> C++ standard library would be a lot more valuable for this kind of
>> work than a new non-standardized C library.
>
> for C++? pretty hard to do that, the language is horrible already :/
> I like Qt, since it doesn't even try to follow the C++ spirit,
> but then again its weird on its own.
>
> Indeed, C is not the place to do high level stuff in.
> I'm still waiting for clay [http://claylabs.com/clay/] to become usable,
> before dropping C++ for system services.
Clay uses llvm so till somebody doesn't make a C compiler out of it (or
make the gcc backend have a decent api like llvm) you will need a C++
standard library.
lu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
