[LLVMdev] gcc in c++

[Daniel Berlin]

Arggh, my bad.
I thought he had posted this stuff to the gcc mailing list, sorry for
the offtopic intrusion.

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:44:46 +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Have you seen this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00385.html
>>> There is a new branch for converting gcc to C++.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> --Edwin
>>
>> The sad thing is that they seem to be replacing one unsafe language with
>> another, presumably with enormous effort.
>>
>> The only hopeful sign in that thread is the proposal for using Cyclone
>> instead, starting here:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00502.html
>>
>> But it is summarily tossed out, without examination:
>>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00644.html
> As it should be.
>>
>> If all we can ever use are languages that everyone knows, there will be
>> no progress.
> Who is we? I haven't seen any patches from you to GCC. I grepped all
> the Changelogs.
>
> In any case, you will only make no progress  by your definition of progress.
> It would certainly be progress by the GCC project's definition of progress.
>
> You are more than free to help in your goal of getting GCC written in
> a new languages by moving GCC yourself, and showing it has serious
> advantages.
> See how much support you get.
> You certainly won't get support simply by doing what Ivan did, which
> is never contribute real work yet suggest we all do something wildly
> different just because they think it is better.
>
> The reality is GCC is moving to C++ because it's community of active
> developers wants to move to C++. You can argue this is a bad idea.
> The consensus is that it isn't a bad idea.  The consensus is also that
> our time is better spent on coding our compiler than evaluating and
> learning new languages.  If someone came along and showed us we could
> do all we ever wanted with some whizz bang new language and it would
> require minimal effort on our part, i'm sure we'd use it.
> Nobody has done this.
>
> You certainly will never achieve the goal of getting people to use new
> languages by sitting on the sidelines and saying how sad it is.
>
> --Dan
>