3 ms·
I agree with the first point. ( an ISO website like isocpp.org ) But strongly oppose the second. Who is gonna develop and maintain such a fruitless project. Yo
by saejox 13y ago
I agree with the first point. ( an ISO website like isocpp.org )
But strongly oppose the second. Who is gonna develop and maintain such a fruitless project. You are not gonna be able optimize it as much as GCC. No one will use.
Here is a rant about C:
Many projects refuse code that contains single line comments // . This should give a nice hint how C language is treated.
On the other hand i have been writing C++11 exlusively since 2012.
C doesn't like change. Not a community a newcomer would like to be in.
- n00b101 13y ago> You are not gonna be able optimize it as much as GCC. No one will use. If LLVM were used as a backend for a C11 compiler then optimizations would be for free. Since C is has such a small surface area, and since LLVM is very much designed for C-like languages, it would be quite easy (e.g. 1 person-year) to implement a production quality C11 front-end for LLVM.
- Someone 13y agoBut why would you, given that LLVM is written in C++ and that clang.llvm.org exists? I get the impression this article wants a C compiler written in plain C for reasons of ideology. I don't think writing a compiler in C on top of a huge project written in C++ is compatible with that ideology.