2 ms·
The only counter I have to "it wouldn't be all that hard to..." statements is that it is 2015, emacs can't even refactor things like xcode can do. And xcode is
by mitchty 12y ago
The only counter I have to "it wouldn't be all that hard to..." statements is that it is 2015, emacs can't even refactor things like xcode can do. And xcode is considered horrible by refactoring standards.
If it were so easy it would have happened by now. One can only conclude gcc and its stewardship have no real desire to allow for such a thing to occur at all.
Which means llvm will likely be the future for being able to handle large complex code bases and interactivity with editors like emacs or vim, or whatever else. Why we have to reparse c/c++ in every editor alive when the compiler already does such things and would just need to dump out the information needed to understand it is beyond me.
I only see 2 solutions to this situation. First is gcc gets left behind as a backwater compiler that won't interact with the real world due to religious reasons. Second is it gets forked and like ecgs before it, the fork becomes the canonical version (likely ignored by the gnu/fsf folks as being a heathen fork or whatever).
- hga 12y agoAnd GNU Emacs has to fork, absent getting RMS's buy-in, which is now not the way to bet. That's where the serious fork has to occur, I presume it could get by with LLVM output, right? Which of course would not be ideal if you're using GCC in your project.... Oh, if only they'd ignore the heathen fork of one of their marque projects. Not going to happen with EMACS, 99+% of its greatness is due to RMS by universal acclimation as of the very early '80s.
- 72deluxe 12y agoXcode cannot refactor C++ at all. Not in the slightest. It'll only do C and Obj-C. It's a pity because it is quite an enjoyable IDE to use every single day for my C++ work (I'm on 6.1.1, doesn't crash unlike the 6.0 series), but missing a feature like that stinks. Not that I've ever had need to use it so far, but still, it is a pity.