Carl Cerecke wrote:
InfoHelp wrote:
By settling on a standard set of tools (the best deducible) & deepening the knowledge of them, CLUG would spend less time moving in circles.
I like circles :-) But what do you mean by best?
I do too - better than (being) squares :-)
- That to which by our contribution, accelerates the succession of the M$ decade(+) by the GNU/Linux decade(+) & beyond - of learning platforms.
Intel may have bound themselves in there - I'm not au fait, but I doubt it.
I know there is a range of platforms, some of which I could name or look up directly - thanks for elucidating. GCC still sounds good, for range compatibility - perhaps its key advantage.
Sharing a pointer from Jim last night, if I remember correctly, the GCC compiler tools were attached to "Linux" development *because* they were - & remain - the best available. The GCC compiler is a GNU product.
Bet on it not being outcoded.
Well, tcc (tinycc) compiles code faster than gcc, and icc (intel cc) usually produces faster code (on intel platforms obviously) than gcc. But, gcc can compile for the most number of platforms though (some of which you've probably never heard of!). Large programs in C tend to be tied not only to a particular compiler, but to a particular version of that compiler. Again, "the best available" depends on what is best.
As usual, "best" may vary from person to person and task to task.
Cheers, Carl.
-- GNU/Linux Users - charting the course prototype2: Mdk/Fedora/SuSE-Gentoo/LFS-Debian/BSD/Hurd
