6 ms·

Yes, I think though gcc will go first.

nly 5y ago
GCC will never completely die. MS though have been moving in the Clang/LLVM direction for years, so I would have zero surprise if VC++ was completely removed tomorrow. My feeling is, as soon as they can be sure they have achieved 100% binary compatibility, MS will jump. The optimizers in VC++ are light years behind, and companies like Apple are embarrassing them on the compatibility front with things like Rosetta 2 (which is a much harder problem to solve)
- andi999 5y ago
  My understanding was the llvm was made because the code basis of gcc is too complicated. Since seems to be a killer move.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    That was a long time ago and the actual primary reason was apparently Stallman missed an email [1], although I think the intentional technical hurdles to plugins was another of many reasons. When GNU moved all their software to GPLv3 and the business community decided they didn’t like that license and Apple brought LLVM as a serious contender. GCC hasn’t remained stagnant though. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/632062/ https://lwn.net/Articles/632062/
    - andi999 5y ago
      Thanks for the article, I am not sure I fully understand it. Could you point to the section about the missed email? Also, do I understand it right, that emacs doesnt integrate well with llvm? (maybe that explains why in llvm presentations ppl use the 'other' editor, I always wondered why not use emacs)
      - vlovich123 5y ago
        > An interesting side note to the debate emerged when Liang Wang posted about LLVM creator Chris Lattner's offer to try to get LLVM's copyright assigned to the FSF back in 2005. It was part of an effort (that seemingly went nowhere) to integrate LLVM and GCC. Stallman never heard about the message: So basically, if Stallman hadn't have missed the message, there's a very real possibility that LLVM would have ended up licensed under GPLv2 & then re-licensed to GPLv3. The engineering world would probably look radically different if that had happened.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    That was ions ago, and if not for anything else, Linux kernel will keep GCC around. Azure Sphere OS is also GCC only, despite Microsoft's new foundled love for clang.
    - riffraff 5y ago
      Why would the Linux kernel keep GCC around? I'm fairly confident the FSF would keep it alive for a long time, but I don't see why it would be necessarily be a priority for the Linux devs to keep GCC forever.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Linux kernel makes use of GCC C, not ISO C, also targets hardware that LLVM doesn't support. Android Linux kernel fork actually builds with clang, and Linux kernel is yet to accept the changes made by Google.
    - account42 5y ago
      There is significant investment in building Linux with Clang so I wouldn't count on Linux keeping GCC relevant forever. Doubly so with the inevitable rustc requirement.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        The ongoing efforts to add a Rust frontend to GCC prove otherwise. No Rust in GCC? No play.
        account42 5y ago
        Unlike C/C++, there is one canonical rustc where the language is developed and GCC will likely always play catch up.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        It doesn't matter, if only GCC gets to play with Linux kernel. Rust is only following down the footsteps of D and Go.
- malkia 5y ago
  There are probably lots of MSVC specific extension (COM, C++/CLR, some pragma file_hash-ing https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/ep77ey/cl_ph_or_pragma_file_hash/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/ep77ey/cl_ph_or_pragma... that would neeed to get ported) - just some examples that come to mind.
  - TillE 5y ago
    They could deprecate most of that stuff and let the old compiler still exist for those who need it, much like how they've been handling XP compatibility for the past several years. But I see no signs of MSVC going away any time soon; Microsoft has a very active and capable compiler team.
    - fomine3 5y ago
      But they also had active and capable browser engine team, isn't it?

nly 5y ago

GCC will never completely die. MS though have been moving in the Clang/LLVM direction for years, so I would have zero surprise if VC++ was completely removed tomorrow. My feeling is, as soon as they can be sure they have achieved 100% binary compatibility, MS will jump. The optimizers in VC++ are light years behind, and companies like Apple are embarrassing them on the compatibility front with things like Rosetta 2 (which is a much harder problem to solve)

andi999 5y ago
My understanding was the llvm was made because the code basis of gcc is too complicated. Since seems to be a killer move.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  That was a long time ago and the actual primary reason was apparently Stallman missed an email [1], although I think the intentional technical hurdles to plugins was another of many reasons. When GNU moved all their software to GPLv3 and the business community decided they didn’t like that license and Apple brought LLVM as a serious contender. GCC hasn’t remained stagnant though. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/632062/ https://lwn.net/Articles/632062/
  - andi999 5y ago
    Thanks for the article, I am not sure I fully understand it. Could you point to the section about the missed email? Also, do I understand it right, that emacs doesnt integrate well with llvm? (maybe that explains why in llvm presentations ppl use the 'other' editor, I always wondered why not use emacs)
    - vlovich123 5y ago
      > An interesting side note to the debate emerged when Liang Wang posted about LLVM creator Chris Lattner's offer to try to get LLVM's copyright assigned to the FSF back in 2005. It was part of an effort (that seemingly went nowhere) to integrate LLVM and GCC. Stallman never heard about the message: So basically, if Stallman hadn't have missed the message, there's a very real possibility that LLVM would have ended up licensed under GPLv2 & then re-licensed to GPLv3. The engineering world would probably look radically different if that had happened.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  That was ions ago, and if not for anything else, Linux kernel will keep GCC around. Azure Sphere OS is also GCC only, despite Microsoft's new foundled love for clang.
  - riffraff 5y ago
    Why would the Linux kernel keep GCC around? I'm fairly confident the FSF would keep it alive for a long time, but I don't see why it would be necessarily be a priority for the Linux devs to keep GCC forever.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Linux kernel makes use of GCC C, not ISO C, also targets hardware that LLVM doesn't support. Android Linux kernel fork actually builds with clang, and Linux kernel is yet to accept the changes made by Google.
  - account42 5y ago
    There is significant investment in building Linux with Clang so I wouldn't count on Linux keeping GCC relevant forever. Doubly so with the inevitable rustc requirement.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      The ongoing efforts to add a Rust frontend to GCC prove otherwise. No Rust in GCC? No play.
      - account42 5y ago
        Unlike C/C++, there is one canonical rustc where the language is developed and GCC will likely always play catch up.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        It doesn't matter, if only GCC gets to play with Linux kernel. Rust is only following down the footsteps of D and Go.
malkia 5y ago
There are probably lots of MSVC specific extension (COM, C++/CLR, some pragma file_hash-ing https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/ep77ey/cl_ph_or_pragma_file_hash/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/ep77ey/cl_ph_or_pragma... that would neeed to get ported) - just some examples that come to mind.
- TillE 5y ago
  They could deprecate most of that stuff and let the old compiler still exist for those who need it, much like how they've been handling XP compatibility for the past several years. But I see no signs of MSVC going away any time soon; Microsoft has a very active and capable compiler team.
  - fomine3 5y ago
    But they also had active and capable browser engine team, isn't it?