William Josephson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:50:28PM -0600, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
no, I don't completely agree. We need gcc for general use, period.
Unless we like living in a cardboard box in an alley forever.
Are you mostly concerned about support for gcc language extensions
or about support for things like C++?
I hate to say it, but in the scientific computing world, you either do
gcc compatibility, 100%, or you run gcc, or you don't get used. That's
it. Many companies we deal with had to do extensive work to their
compilers to get apps to run, i.e. they had to make them gcc-compatible.
It's sad, I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
I'm really tired of telling people how nice plan 9 is, then having them
ask me how to compile xyz, and having to tell them they have to do a
port. That's pretty much where their interest ends.
But, in many ways, plan 9 is an ideal kernel for HPC. It's just that the
out-of-kernel picture is not great, since we lack gcc or gcc-compatible
compilers.
ron
