4 ms·
It is a pitty that - GCC switched from C to C++ - CUDA switched from C to C++ But I can understand the decision, and at that time , C++ frontend features and
by drwu 1y ago
It is a pitty that
- GCC switched from C to C++
- CUDA switched from C to C++
But I can understand the decision, and at that time , C++ frontend features and libs were a little bit less horrible.
- deeznuttynutz 1y agoIt's a pity? Please explain in detail how alternatives would have worked better for GCC and CUDA. Also, if you could share some historical context about how those alternatives could realistically have been implemented at the time, that would be helpful too. I love to hear all the "would've" and "should've" scenarios.
- j16sdiz 1y agoLast time I checked, MSVC don't want to implement C99/newer and instead focus on C++.
- drwu 1y agoTo be fair, MSVC has the most C99 stuffs. What is mainly missing for porting (my) programs is the native complex number. But we have Intel compiler for free on Windows, which is fully compatible with the C/C++ standard and produces faster binaries. The C++ frontend of MSVC handles (the common) compiler-specific language extensions differently than the other compilers. Besides, its pre-processor behaves differently too. It is now good that there is a clang frontend for MSVC.