[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50F2EB88.3010101@gentoo.org>
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.
