Am I the only one...

who thinks GCC sucks? Not the compiling engine, but the interface to it. It's made of confusing, illogical, error prone options with stupid default values, and the idea of calling everyone and their mother itself (and mix everyone's options together) is as bad as penis cancer. For example, -s is passed directly to the linker, yet -rpath isn't; -Wall and most of -Wstuff controls warnings, yet -Wl is some kind of hack to pass comma-separated arguments to the linker, especially the ones not supported by gcc; etc. Whoever did this has a disturbed mind. And I think I know who did this.

Anyways, is there a sane interface which provides completely separate, non-automagical preprocessor+compiler, assembler, and linker, with well thought out options?

An induction problem? It's not.

Do any of you use SCREEN?  It's a "terminal multiplexer"; if you're forced to use it, you might hate it.  But to people who find it (eventually and inevitably, after going through the current-slew of window managers, loving fluxbox for a while, then abandoning X altogether since it sucks), it is a godly little app.

<gay>Console Warriors Unite!</gay>

You should find "real" reasons why gcc is bad, like how the latest and greatest revisions breaks stuff, or how it's a huge unmanagable mess to maintain (ala GIMP, KDE, et al.)

>>42
i thought screen used x since it can play mozilla and cetera

Request URL since screen is a pretty common word to Google for and I'm not so sure what is it

http://www.gnu.org/software/screen/screen.html

screen isn't that useful on a local machine, but it can't be beat over a remote connection.

screen + SSH ftw

>>43 see >>45


yeah screen rocks the command line.  when my friend showed it to me i fell in love at first sight.  =)

lol