[LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM

[kr512]

Jon Harrop wrote:
> So LLVM has relatively poor support for Windows, no direct 
> support for DLL generation and the exact opposite of your 
> performance requirements.

I see.  This news is disappointing to me.

> I appreciate that you have customer demands but those 
> demands are very unusual (and, frankly, absurd!) but you 
> must try to meet them regardless.

Very unusual?  Absurd?  Who the what?!  I feel like we are 
talking about completely different topics.  I feel like you 
have just stated that sex is unpopular and very unusual.

I don't see how you can possibly say it is very unusual. 
Everyone is doing it.  You are doing it too.  You are doing 
it and yet you are saying it is absurd.  If it is absurd, 
why are you doing it?!

It is an indisputable fact that the majority of software is 
fully compiled to native code files BEFORE being launched, 
not during.  If anything is unusual, it is JIT that is 
unusual.   JIT is the behavior in the minority -- there is 
no doubting that fact.  JIT is the unusual one.

I don't want JIT.  At this very moment you are almost 
certainly running non-JIT programs on your computer.  And 
yet you say that it is very unusual and absurd!  What the... 
?!

Why is it absurd?  You didn't state ANY reasons why it is 
absurd.  There is no point in saying that something is 
absurd if you don't provide any reasons to support your 
opinion.

If anything is absurd, it is JIT that is absurd.  There is 
hardly any reason to bother with the added complexity and 
reduced performance of JIT -- it is simpler and easier and 
better performance to compile the program at some point 
BEFORE launching rather than DURING execution, and to store 
that native code on disk.

OK yes in some situations JIT does make sense, but in most 
situations it clearly does NOT, and that is why JIT is NOT 
used in MOST situations.  Because in most situations, using 
JIT would be absurd!

MY GOD MAN!!  For chrissakes, how can you say that sex is 
unpopular?!?!

JIT is the one that is unusual and absurd, not sex, and 
there is absolutely no disputing the fact that the majority 
of programs are fully compiled to native code files at some 
point BEFORE being launched.  Trying to convert the program 
to native code DURING execution is an absurd 
over-complicated unnecessary strategy except in some special 
situations.

Sorry for being a bit repetitive but you have just stated 
that sex is unpopular and I don't know how else to get the 
message across that actually it is very popular, and how on 
earth can you not know this?!

> Nobody here cares about providing that functionality 
> because nobody else wants it.

If nobody wants it, then why is it so very popular and 
commonly used?  If people don't seem to care about it, it is 
because they are already getting it elsewhere -- from GCC, 
MSVS, etc.

It is like when you have lots of sex, you aren't much 
interested in getting more sex from others.  You are not 
uninterested in sex because sex is unwanted, rather you are 
uninterested because you are already getting lots of it. 
Sheesh.

And Jon, for your own sake, please let me assure you, I 
don't know what your parents or friends have been telling 
you, but it is very very common, and not at all unusual. 
Loads of people are doing it apparently without you having 
knowledge of it.  Try it, and I think you will see why 
millions of people like it and don't think it absurd.