>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, David Given wrote:
>
>> Yes, he's quite scathing about the Compiler Flamewar, isn't he? I have to
>> admit that that wasn't our finest hour.
>
>Which flame-war was that?
Well, back in the early days there was this huge argument as to which compiler
we should be using. The main choices were (a) bcc+unproto, which we had and
worked, more or less; (b) lcc, which hadn't been fully ported; (c) Borland,
which is commercial; (d) gcc, which also hadn't been ported, and would be too
large for a self-hosting system; (e) other. It's painfully obvious to anyone
sensible that (a), being the only working solution, would be the way to go.
But there was this massive flamewar lasting about a month over which one we
should use that was Unimpressive.
(How is the lcc port, anyway? I heard that there was a problem with lcc itself
in that it didn't support some of the semantics needed by some odder 8088
instructions. Is anything happening?)
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+
| Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Truth is stranger than fiction, because
| Play: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | fiction has to make sense.
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+
