Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote on 14.02.22 17:43:
>
>> On 14 Feb 2022, at 14:59, Max Chan <xcvi...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 2022, at 8:23 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald
>>> <rich...@frithmacdonald.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 14 Feb 2022, at 11:43, Max Chan <xcvi...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear List,
>>>>
>>>> There are over and over again arguments on moving on to LLVM/clang for
>>>> latest language features versus maintaining compatibility with
>>>> old/uncommon platforms and GCC,
>>> Really this is simply not the case among GNUstep developers.
>>> Those of us who actually use the stuff just work with whatever we
>>> prefer/need, because GNUstep already works with both toolchains.
>> The hard requirement of allowing building using GCC means we are restricted
>> to language features equivalent of OS X 10.6.8 or iOS 4.3.5,
> Please don't spread such nonsense on the mailing lists.
>
> The fact that we have a huge base of code that builds with both GCC and clang
> (and a small part that only functions when built with clang) in no way
> restricts us in the way we write new code.
>
> Having highly portable code is a strong point, but that doesn't mean that
> *all* features are equally portable or that contributors are required to
> write perfect portable code.
>
> It does the project a huge disservice to tell developers they 'have to use an
> ancient version of the language'. Please don't do it.
It does the project a huge reality check to tell developers they 'have to use
an ancient version of the language *IF THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO GNUSTEP*'.
That's says it all.
