Linked by R_T_F_M on Thu 13th Sep 2012 21:19 UTC
FreeBSD "For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from GCC to Clang/LLVM as our default compiler. We intend to ship FreeBSD 10.0 with Clang as the default compiler on i386 and amd64 platforms. To this end, we will make WITH_CLANG_IS_CC the default on i386 and amd64 platforms on November 4th."
Thread beginning with comment 535160
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: C++
by moondevil on Sat 15th Sep 2012 07:10 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: C++"
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

Everything you said about Java I can say about C++.

I started using C++ in 1992, on those days C++ was still "C with classes", and everything you complain about Java is how C++ was used on those days.

Everyone was blindly trying to do Smalltalk in C++.

My first compiler with basic support for templates, which were still being standardized, was Turbo C++ 3.1 for Windows 3.x, bought in 1994.

Templates were only working properly across major C++ compilers around 2004. Still some edge cases of the C++98 were not fully implemented across all major compilers. And even afterwards there were many companies that disallowed the use of templates in their production code.

Which means in many enterprises out there, C++ developers have been writing C++ code the same way, you Java forces people to do so.

Actually, what happened is that many early adopters of Java, were C++ developers that were never able to use templates, and carried on coding in Java as they always did before in C++.

You say yourself that there are better ways to code in Java, but you teach your students otherwise. How can the tool be blamed?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[14]: C++
by boldingd on Sat 15th Sep 2012 08:51 in reply to "RE[13]: C++"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Not exactly. Yes, C++ developed slowly. Yes, early compilers supported different sub-sets of it, so yes, different developers make wildly different uses of the language even today. And yes, C++ as a language has its own set of flaws, some of them quite severe. But the generic containers in the C++ standard library have been (comparatively-)type-safe templates for forever, and C++ has been multi-paradigm for most of its history. Java as a platform needed to suffer a dramatic loss of developer mind-share before its developers finally relented, compromised the language's elegant OO design and grudgingly started to add support for a lot of features that C++ (and Python and Ada and C#) have had forever. We had to wait way to long for generics, and absurdly long for RAII.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[15]: C++
by moondevil on Sat 15th Sep 2012 13:46 in reply to "RE[14]: C++"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Java as a platform needed to suffer a dramatic loss of developer mind-share before its developers finally relented, compromised the language's elegant OO design and grudgingly started to add support for a lot of features that C++ (and Python and Ada and C#) have had forever. We had to wait way to long for generics, and absurdly long for RAII.


Funny, because here in Germany I get called every single week for new Java projects. My employer has lots of Java projects proposals without enough developers to take care of them all.

That does not look like loss of mind-share to me.

Now I agree with you that generics in Java suck, and I also don't like the way the language is going with the annotation overload that it is getting (@override, @value, ...).

For me, Java is just another tool. The language I use, always depends on the project requirements, and is usually already decided by the customer.

Reply Parent Score: 2