GCC's future looks bleak, in fact there won't be a future at all because GCC is deprecated.
This isn't the first time GCC has been deprecated by a superior project but it will be the first time the FSF won't be able to adopt the superior project as the new GCC.
Fact: GCC is defective by design.
Fact: GCC is obsolete.
Fact: GCC is deprecated.
C's future looks bleak, in fact there won't be a future at all because C is deprecated.
This isn't the first time C has been deprecated by a superior project but it will be the first time the FSF won't be able to adopt the superior project as the new C.
Fact: C is defective by design.
Fact: C is obsolete.
Fact: C is deprecated.
So what, nothing is forever. Good things have to go away to be replaced by new things, not always better.
Like thinkpad keyboards.
;_;
Anyway, GCC will be remembered, as a driving force in the software freedom movement. And Thinkpad keyboards will be remembered as a tool thought for professionals, when thinkpads were tools for those who do ™
Perhaps if it weren't deliberately designed to suck shit because of RMS's paranoia that someone would steal it from him, it could actually be maintained beyond the backend.
>>1
There aren't any other compilers that will compile code to my purposes. LLVM is improving year by year but it still needs more work, it wouldn't compile my older code properly and I had to change it to make it to compile.
>>7
RMS didn't believe anybody would steal GCC. His concern was that a more modular design for GCC would make it easier for proprietary software writers to make proprietary extensions to GCC. A modular structure is a more complex structure but this structure allows people to focus more clearly on individual sections of the system. GCC's current structure is simpler, but it also means that people need to account for larger sections of the system to comprehend it. In practise, it's more difficult to work with GCC's 'simple' backend than LLVM's modular backend because of sheer volume of information to take into account.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 13:39
Checking build tools versions...
build/core/main.mk:163: ****************************************
build/core/main.mk:164: * gcc is linked to llvm-gcc which will *
build/core/main.mk:165: * not create a useable emulator. *
build/core/main.mk:166: ****************************************
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 13:47
Other languages can get you to a working state faster, but in the long run, when performance and reliability are important, C will save you time and headaches. I'm painfully learning that lesson once again.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 14:29
>>15
Do you even know the difference between gcc and GCC?
Note: ncmpcpp is pronounced `nacoomeepeesoopeepoo'.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 17:30
GAY COON COCKS
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 19:08
In August 2012, the GCC steering committee announced that GCC now uses C++ as its implementation language. This means that to build GCC from sources, a C++ compiler is required that understands C++ 2003.
GCC is doomed. The end is near. The signs are all there.
>>20
Isn't it always pleasing to see some EXPERT INTERROBANG USAGE‽
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 23:03
WHITE POWER
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 23:19
>>13 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00460.html
GCC mailing list: RMS believes that people who extend GCC, hoping to take their extensions proprietary, and then finding that they can't, will then just decide to contribute the code, if it is useful, since otherwise they can't distribute and have to support it by themselves forever, or else they have to risk legal problems. And he has some evidence that this sometimes happens (C++, Objective-C, many contributed back ends). So the intent isn't to prevent certain people from using it, but to have those people contribute the changes back even if that isn't their preference.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel/101374 The FSF doesn't want plugins because they are concerned that people will start distributing proprietary plugins to gcc. I personally think this is a fear from twenty years ago which shows a lack of understanding of today's compiler market, but, that said, the FSF wants to cover themselves for the future as well.
C is a fantastic high level language. I'll repeat that. C is a fantastic high level language. It's not as high level as Java or C#, and certainly no where near as high level as Erlang, Python, or Javascript. But it's as high level as C++, and far far simpler. Sure C++ offers more abstraction, but it doesn't present a high level of abstraction away from C. With C++ you still have to know everything you knew in C, plus a bunch of other ridiculous shit.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-30 6:14
>>29 And he has some evidence that this sometimes happens (C++, Objective-C, many contributed back ends).
Except that in case of Objective-C that's pure propaganda (and I don't know what that guy meant by C++ and backends). RMS forced Apple to release their Objective-C fronted, but the runtime library remained proprietary, the runtime library was several times more complex than the frontend, and the attempt to implement a Free alternative never got anywhere to production quality[sup]*[sup]. Well, at least this way RMS caused Apple to adopt LLVM and embrace its BSD-style license, that's his greatest contribution to software development in my opinion.
>>31
How did those actions mean RMS contributed to software development? I'm missing something here. Apple are the ones who contributed to software development in this case, not RMS.
>>33
I'd like to see people implement a full featured system in assembly. This includes a usable GUI system like Gnome2, a full featured web browser, media system (ex. VLC or gstreamer), office productivity suite, hardware drivers, etc.
>>34
It would be extreme pain in the ass without macros, and if you use macros you can as well do it in Forth. Take a look at win32forth, it's pretty awesome.
>>35
I know about Phlux and MenuetOS and MenuetOS is undoubtedly impressive. My point is that hand written assembly is woefully inadequate in implementing a full set of software expected for general purpose systems. Use the right tool for the job and assembly isn't the right tool for many sorts of jobs.
>>39
It's inadequate in terms of amount of time and effort invested and the return on that time. As fun as it is to work with assembly, I would never use it for any software that'd run on a general purpose because it would take far too much work for the return I'm expecting. I like esolangs as well but I do not use them for the exact same reason why I don't use assembly in general purpose software.