This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, bonzini at gnu dot org, dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com, dberlin at dberlin dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com, rguenther at suse dot de, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:43:41 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <10903221654.AA06335@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220952o1615ba1cyc7a45f5117b1b633@mail.gmail.com> <10903221703.AA06462@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903221005w2e3b1170p1f626c59b87f8e72@mail.gmail.com> <10903221725.AA06648@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903221031v58ec274die8d09405d01449ca@mail.gmail.com> <10903221744.AA06752@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903221102u107ccf74jbe046dc7c1c47061@mail.gmail.com> <49C6BCE0.7010206@redhat.com>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Richard Kenner
>> <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I would mind, because it's not MY issue, but RMS's! I don't want
>>>>> to speculate why RMS might not want to use C++
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is non argument: RMS has not not contributed any executable
>>>> code for GCC, and even less the C++ front-end, for YEARS now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What does that have to do with expressing philosophical beliefs about how
>>> software development should be done?
>>>
>>
>> You asserted
>>
>> ? I don't want to speculate why RMS might not want to use C++
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> But, in this case the users of C++ would be the GCC developers.
>> Those are the ones directly suffering the handcuffs.
>>
>
> I wouldn't generalize things that broadly -- not everyone sees C++ in a
> positive light.
I'm fully aware of that.
>?Personally I see things in C++ I like, but I also see
> things in C++ (and more specifically how it's commonly used) that I think is
> horribly bad.
Well, the request was not about the full gamut of C++, but rather
a subset. And the time of the discussion, I thought the subset
was quite conservative. Every programming language can
be abused -- and I don't think I've made an exception for C++.
-- Gaby