From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <16440f0809b277beb24869fd45f92523@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:05:48 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Fortran
In-Reply-To: <20071114165505.GA7883@sigint.cs.purdue.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f9649db0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:52:55PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > wow!  if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris,
> > do you think gcc would have gotten where it did?
> 
> (way OT at this point...)
> 
> Probably.  Face it, Sun's bundled cc was only there to relink the kernel
> after diddling ("tuning") its constants.  Optimization was not its strong
> suit.
> 
> We were already using gcc in preference to cc long before Solaris 2.0,
> especially on other bloatware like X.  The only thing cc was good for
> by then was bootstrapping gcc.
> 
> Man, you've gotten me all weepy for gcc 1.x.  How sick is that?

i'm all weepy.  but that's because i thought at the time gcc was good software.
i was comparing it to sun's c and the travisty xinu foisted.  i had no idea
what good software looked like.

a mind is like a neutrino detector.  even big ones wait years for a
clueon event.

the reason for this, however, is different.  it's not that the clueon
capture cross section is so small, but there are just so few of them
and so inhibitors.  i believe gcc may be one of the largest clueon
flux inhibitors in the universe.

- erik