programming involves many of the classic trade-offs in programming: dynamic
features add flexibility, static features add speed and type checking."
My Note: please keep in mind we are talking about language used for writing
clang, a compiler tool.
So, Objective-C has disadvantage with regard to size od generated code,
performance, and optimization as compared to C++.
But both share OO (object-oriented) paradigm, which many pros consider
synthetic, or pulled out of thin air if you prefer, with negative effects on
devs mental health, design, and resulting code quality.
I hope I got all facts right -:)
most probably, but what does it mean if clang have multiple layers,
frontend, LLVM backend, etc. etc. for normal user who just needs C
compiler.
It doesn't matter how it do this but what are the results.
It seems to me that switching to clang was a correct strategic decision for
reasons linked to GPLv3 license as described in my prior post and by other
thread posters.
You didn't wrote anything new here.
But there seems to be some price paid related to "written in C++" facts
described by me in both posts, which may make some people come to a conclusion
that the decision was based more on a political factor (Apple) than on
technical merits.
It doesn't really care how clang is written but how it works. And it was
political decision because compiler itself, on GPLv3 licence, does not
block anyhow distributing it's output - binaries.
C++ libraries can be limiting, but... wasn't replaced.
If it would be truly about removing GPLv3 code that hurts, replacing
libstdc++ would be first thing to do.
For now we have removed GPL code that doesn't hurt
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
