Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:14:48 +0100 From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: NULL On 13/01/13 17:29, Rob Landley wrote: > No, gcc was a hairball because Richard Stallman explicitly wanted it to > be (for example see https://lwn.net/Articles/259157/), he feared > allowing the pieces to be cleanly separated because then you could > decouple them and use a proprietary back-end with the gcc front-end, and > vice versa. (Which happened anyway, it's how llvm was developed in the > first place, the clang front-end was a replacement for the gcc front end > in llvm/gcc.) I know and given how they discuss about using C++ exotic features in gcc (or not) I really wonder if they do. >> And we are discussing on how bend a C runtime to fit the C++ runtime. >> >> I do really hope Go will win more people and useful code and integration >> will come up to make C++ less important. > > C is a good language. Go doesn't need to replace C, no matter how much > C++ FUDs it. Go needs to replace C++, at least it is plan9-sane/mirror-image-sane. > That said, people wrote useful programs in Cobol and ADA for many years, > and even after they sober up they'll still need legacy support to run > the results. And that brings us back to why we are picking our collective brains on supporting one of the many C++ mistakes. 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.