4 ms·
NIHI is usually "using product X is almost as hard (or expensive )as building it" Linux tends to shun unfree software which is a very different take. Buy or bu
by Guvante 3y ago
NIHI is usually "using product X is almost as hard (or expensive )as building it"
Linux tends to shun unfree software which is a very different take. Buy or build is roughly money vs time (aka money). Software freedom is not the same thing.
Also why does software freedom lead to divergences? Certainly GCC partook in the arms race around C++ but recently they have been pretty good about aiming for full standard support as the goal. (The exception being proposed features but that is unavoidable when C++ prefers battle tested proposals)
- pjmlp 3y agoActually one of the problems we are having with compilers catching up with ISO is that since C++11, features aren't battle tested, rather designed in paper or some special compiler branch, and eventually adopted by everyone.
- Guvante 3y agoHonestly depending on the feature that might be for the best. If all three compilers have distinct on by default divergent settings that would be terrible. My point is outside of instances where everyone agrees something has to change you need a compiler branch at the minimum. This means the compiler you changed will get that feature first. Given it takes years to implement the full standard this leads to divergence between the compilers in standards compliance. Honestly all totally workable but makes talking about "standard C++" hard.
- pjmlp 3y agoThere are more than three compilers, and many of the changes if done at all in an existing compiler, are a mix between private branches and ongoing unstable features, hardly battle tested as the first standards were, when existing practice is what came into the standard.