This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH INSTALLED]: const typedefs part 19/N
On 8/28/07, Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com> wrote:
> On 28 August 2007 18:24, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > On 8/28/07, Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com> wrote:
> >> On 28 August 2007 18:05, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/28/07, Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Also, when that time comes, we *do* have to have the discussion about
> >>>> increasing the requirements on ordinary users as opposed to developers.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I can see how this would be a problem what with our *millions* of
> >>> users without C++ compilers.
> >>
> >> Sarcasm is cheap, and falsified statistics are easy to pluck out of thin
> >> air, but they're both a bit insubstantial when it comes to establishing a
> >> point.
> >
> > So wait, you really believe even >10% of our users don't have C++ compilers?
>
> Nope, I just don't pull figures out of thin air. Ever.
They aren't thin air.
There are plenty of statistics that show that C++ and Java are the
most widely used languages today, and C is far behind.
The number of users that have installed, e.g., linux distros, that
include C++ compilers but not C compiler is non-existent (feel free to
look it up, ubuntu, debian, et all have statistics.
>
> For pulling figures out of thin air? Apology accepted! <insert HHOS tag
> here!>
Sorry, not going to apologize for extrapolating based on the data.
You can believe it or not.
I don't see you citing sources for *any* of your claims that it will
make things more difficult for our users.
For all you know, it could be easier for our users. They could all
have C++ compilers, but have to have downloaded C compilers to build
GCC.
After all, any claims to the contrary would have to be "pulled out of
thin air" since you don't have numbers!
>
> > What I see users begging us for is a faster, smaller, better code
> > producing compiler. Not a compiler that "does not add requirements".
>
> What you *see* is a private, subjective and anecdotal experience, which cannot
> be made commensurable with anyone else's private subjective experiences in the
> absence of direct telepathic communication. I like hard measurements because
> they can be communicated in objective terms, and I am innately suspicious of
> anything that is justified by any kind of reasoning that seems to me to be an
> "all-the-world's-a-X" argument.
IT'S ALL AN ILLUSION.
>