| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
KDE Has Tea With StallmanKDE Has Tea With StallmanPosted May 3, 2003 21:39 UTC (Sat) by jonasutterstrom (guest, #4158)Parent article: KDE Has Tea With Stallman Nice to see Stallman in an interview where we hear more than just the GNU/Linux debate. No surprise that he mostly runs GNU Emacs but I'm a bit surprised that he doesn't use X very often. I also use (X)Emacs a lot but it's clearly superior running it in X. FSF recommends against C++? Strange to hear that when their most successful project (gcc) puts so much effort in making C++ better. /Jonas U
(Log in to post comments)
FSF, gcc & C++ Posted May 4, 2003 16:42 UTC (Sun) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] > FSF recommends against C++? Strange to hear that when their> most successful project (gcc) puts so much effort in making C++ better. Actually, not so much, for that, anyway. I'm not sure why the negative recommendation, but gcc is what it is because so many have encouraged and many supported gcc modules for their platform, be it a hardware processor, or a software development language. gcc is, I believe, the most widely targeted compiler collection around, and of course effort will be put into making it better at anything as popular as C++. The fact that with gcc 3.x (formerly egcs) it's far more open than it was previously also likely encourages folks that prefer C++ to contribute to making its compilation better and more efficient under gcc.
FSF, gcc & C++ Posted May 5, 2003 13:09 UTC (Mon) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] > FSF recommends against C++? Strange to hear that when their> most successful project (gcc) puts so much effort in making C++ better. Actually, not so much, for that, anyway. I'm not sure why the negative recommendation... Not sure, but my guess would be that the ABI keeps changing, one change each from g++ 2.95 to 2.96 to 3.0 to 3.1 to 3.2 -- four changes in rapid succession! (Yes, 2.96 was RedHat's fault, but that still leaves three due to gcc.) Ironically, this has its biggest impact on proprietary software, which breaks irreparably when linked against C++ libs that get rebuilt (e.g. Qt, KDE), though of course free OSes which upgrade gracefully such as Debian also need to work around it carefully. The Kompany deals with this by using only static linking, resulting in a big waste of memory and disk space. So C++ is a PITA when used for core libs which lots of software must link against. The fact that with gcc 3.x (formerly egcs) it's far more open than it was previously... <nitpick>I think you mean 2.95, which was the first release merged with egcs.</nitpick>
|
|||||||||||