From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2568 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luca Barbato Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: NULL Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:14:48 +0100 Message-ID: <50F2EB88.3010101@gentoo.org> References: <1358094579.32505.15@driftwood> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358097310 29994 80.91.229.3 (13 Jan 2013 17:15:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:15:10 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2569-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Jan 13 18:15:24 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TuR9P-00043f-JP for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:15:15 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 13946 invoked by uid 550); 13 Jan 2013 17:14:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 13938 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2013 17:14:58 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 In-Reply-To: <1358094579.32505.15@driftwood> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2568 Archived-At: 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