> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:21 schrieb Andreas Fink <[email protected]>: > > >> On 25 Nov 2019, at 11:18, H. Nikolaus Schaller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I know that I likely start a flame war, but watching the discussion from an >> elevated point of view... >> >>> Am 25.11.2019 um 10:30 schrieb Gregory Casamento <[email protected]>: >>> * Compatibility, much of the API is moving towards using blocks. Blocks >>> *ARE NOT SUPPORTED* on GCC and aren't likely to be anytime in the near >>> future. >> >> Hm, where has our own creativity gone? >> >> Fred mentioned that it could be possible to define some block wrapper macros >> if some time is invested. >> It that works out, we do not make our decisions depend on gcc *not* >> implementing something. >> >> So this argument for moving to clang looks more like an excuse that we do >> not work on our own gcc compatible solution, isn't it? >> >> -- hns > > using the same argument you can say we could use assember by creating some > tools to output assembler first.
No. We are not talking about different language hierarchies but the same and one language feature. > As David pointed out, its a hell of a lot of work for no benefit and > dragging along old workarounds which lead to problems and performance impacts. Have you even tried? And evaluated what the workarounds and performance impacts are? Nobody has, but you already argue against it. That seems to confirm my argument that we have lost creativity...
