Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)

[forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 276 bytes --]

so does lcc, if you're looking for something off Plan 9 that's small,
cleanly written, and portable.  you'll still need to sort out
the assembly and linking phases though.

there, you see: it needn't run on plan 9 for
some of us to like it, it must only be well done.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2020 bytes --]

To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:26:24 -0500
Message-ID: <20011109222628.9842219A60@mail.cse.psu.edu>

> There's been a lot of noise about how GCC might be more ugly, or
> poorly constructed, or such.

Translation: some people here have opinions that differ from yours.

> I'm asking whether amidst all that noise
> anyone has bothered to see whether it actually performs its job better
> or worse.  It does seem to me to be an important question in
> evaluating tools which one is actually better at the principal job the
> tool is designed to perform.

GCC is painfully slow.  I really don't care if it produces an executable
that's 5% faster, if you're working in a compile-execute-debug-rewrite
cycle, you want that compile step to complete in a reasonable time.
Plan 9's compiler beats GCC hands down on this one.