On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:10 PM <bytevolc...@safe-mail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:30:10 +0000 > Javier Guerra Giraldez <jav...@guerrag.com> wrote: > > why not? fossil makes for a neat deployment client! yes, it can also > > be done with just an http client, but still is a nice option to have. > > Because people do not use compilers on such systems, but rather, they > use other systems that can compile for the target system. > > > but i haven't seen any reason to promote a language switch. nice as > > they are, C11 features make only easier development; not better code, > > much less any performance improvement or any user-visible advantage. > > I am not suggesting a language switch (C11 is still C) and I'm also > not suggesting just use C11 for the sake of it. Rather, I am suggesing > using modern C features to clean up the code and allow the compiler to > optimise it better. For example, postponed variable declarations, > inline functions, stdint.h definitions, etc. This isn't even C11 stuff, > it's all basic C99 functionality which has been around for 18 years. > > > SQLite _is_ used on lots of weird targets, and there's much shared > > code, and most importantly, shared code style. introducing an > > artificial split between them doesn't seem a good use of developer > > time. > > What sort of weird targets does SQLite run on which require the use of > a very old (or broken) compiler that can't handle any C99 features? > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
