4 ms·

I have to admit I fail to see the point you're trying to make with the price of the compiler; how does this bear negatively on the C++ language?

by eliben 12y ago

pjmlp 12y ago
You need to be able to provide a compiler for your language that can beat C++ compilers, while offering for free, because in 2015 almost no one pays for compilers. So without a strong revenue, it is almost impossible to provide alternatives, hence the status quo doesn't change.
- CountSessine 12y ago
  I still don't understand the point that Animats is making - what you've said argues in favor of C++ given that C++ already has multiple high-quality compilers available for it. If revenue is such a big issue, how has the Rust community come so far with their compiler?
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    Part of the Rust developers are employed by Mozilla, and Rust is being developed since 2006. http://www.steveklabnik.com/fosdem2015/ http://www.steveklabnik.com/fosdem2015/ You would hardly hear about it if development wasn't sponsored.
    - CountSessine 12y ago
      Again, maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but I still don't understand the point he's making. First he declares that the alternatives to C++ are better than ever, which I guess is true. He makes a point about Golang being a great alternative to C++ for web apps. I can't imagine that anyone is actually using C++ for web apps (are they?!?), so I don't see Golang as a C++ alternative so much as I see it as a Java or Ruby alternative. But I guess you could say that Golang is still quite literally a better choice for a webapp than C++ is - for that matter Golang is superior to INTERCAL for webapps too. Then there's this whole coda to his post where I guess he's trying to make the point that you can't make money selling C++ compilers anymore? Is he just missing the point? C++ compilers are part of an ecosystem - of course you don't make money selling them. Why has Microsoft always nearly given away Visual Studio? Why is Xcode free? Or is Animats making a more subtle argument here that I'm not parsing?
      - pjmlp 12y ago
        > I can't imagine that anyone is actually using C++ for web apps (are they?!?) Well, Apache and IIS modules, or web access to embedded devices. > C++ compilers are part of an ecosystem - of course you don't make money selling them. It wasn't always like that. Back in the 80's and 90's if you wanted a compiler for any language, including C++, buying was the only option. I did buy a few of them. Microsof only offers Visual Studio since the 2005 version, as open source started to make a dent into Windows. The .NET SDK was the first developer tooling that Microsoft offered for free. Given the price difference between Macs and PCs, XCode isn't quite free. And you need to pay 100 euros/dolars yearly if you want access to the developer program. And if you look into the games consoles, embedded market or high performance computing, compilers are still commercial. But in the desktop and server market, hardly anyone will be willing to pay for compilers in 2015.
      - Animats 12y ago
        * I can't imagine that anyone is actually using C++ for web apps (are they?!?)* Google is. They need the speed. Why do you think Google is paying for the development of Go? They need a better language for their back-end processing. 2x slower means twice as many acres of data center. C++ is too slow to write and too hard to debug, and Python is too slow to execute. (Google had a project to speed up Python, called Unladen Swallow, but it failed.)

I have to admit I fail to see the point you're trying to make with the price of the compiler; how does this bear negatively on the C++ language?

by eliben 12y ago

I have to admit I fail to see the point you're trying to make with the price of the compiler; how does this bear negatively on the C++ language?

pjmlp 12y ago

You need to be able to provide a compiler for your language that can beat C++ compilers, while offering for free, because in 2015 almost no one pays for compilers. So without a strong revenue, it is almost impossible to provide alternatives, hence the status quo doesn't change.

CountSessine 12y ago
I still don't understand the point that Animats is making - what you've said argues in favor of C++ given that C++ already has multiple high-quality compilers available for it. If revenue is such a big issue, how has the Rust community come so far with their compiler?
- pjmlp 12y ago
  Part of the Rust developers are employed by Mozilla, and Rust is being developed since 2006. http://www.steveklabnik.com/fosdem2015/ http://www.steveklabnik.com/fosdem2015/ You would hardly hear about it if development wasn't sponsored.
  - CountSessine 12y ago
    Again, maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but I still don't understand the point he's making. First he declares that the alternatives to C++ are better than ever, which I guess is true. He makes a point about Golang being a great alternative to C++ for web apps. I can't imagine that anyone is actually using C++ for web apps (are they?!?), so I don't see Golang as a C++ alternative so much as I see it as a Java or Ruby alternative. But I guess you could say that Golang is still quite literally a better choice for a webapp than C++ is - for that matter Golang is superior to INTERCAL for webapps too. Then there's this whole coda to his post where I guess he's trying to make the point that you can't make money selling C++ compilers anymore? Is he just missing the point? C++ compilers are part of an ecosystem - of course you don't make money selling them. Why has Microsoft always nearly given away Visual Studio? Why is Xcode free? Or is Animats making a more subtle argument here that I'm not parsing?
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      > I can't imagine that anyone is actually using C++ for web apps (are they?!?) Well, Apache and IIS modules, or web access to embedded devices. > C++ compilers are part of an ecosystem - of course you don't make money selling them. It wasn't always like that. Back in the 80's and 90's if you wanted a compiler for any language, including C++, buying was the only option. I did buy a few of them. Microsof only offers Visual Studio since the 2005 version, as open source started to make a dent into Windows. The .NET SDK was the first developer tooling that Microsoft offered for free. Given the price difference between Macs and PCs, XCode isn't quite free. And you need to pay 100 euros/dolars yearly if you want access to the developer program. And if you look into the games consoles, embedded market or high performance computing, compilers are still commercial. But in the desktop and server market, hardly anyone will be willing to pay for compilers in 2015.
    - Animats 12y ago
      * I can't imagine that anyone is actually using C++ for web apps (are they?!?)* Google is. They need the speed. Why do you think Google is paying for the development of Go? They need a better language for their back-end processing. 2x slower means twice as many acres of data center. C++ is too slow to write and too hard to debug, and Python is too slow to execute. (Google had a project to speed up Python, called Unladen Swallow, but it failed.)