Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 18:55:34 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 20:51:00, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>I disagree completely. It rules big time. If people want backwards >>compatibility, they can use old stuff. > >Depends on the level of pain. Suppose that we can make a compiler that is four >times faster, but there is no such thing as malloc(), printf(), or fseek(). >Will you actually use it? If there is minimal effort needed for a recompile, it >might be a good idea. The necessary evil of backwards compatibility has been >addressed (for instance) by the ANSI/ISO C committees, and I think their >conclusion (some is needed) is the right one. > It wasn't too clear, but I was talking in general terms, not specific to gcc. I think standard conformance is very important too. But in the case of C or C++, if people just follow the standard, I think they will have fewer problems with 3.0 compared with older releases. >>Making a clean break makes it possible to >>make a more well-designed system without regard for old odd idiomatic bugs and >>features of the old version. > >I think following the standard better is a good idea, generally. Not sure what >you mean by "a clean break" since they are definitely not going to do a rewrite >from scratch. > Again, I was talking in general terms. Not too clear, I guess :) >>Intel should do the same. Make a clean break. > >If they do, I hope they don't break anything or slow it down. They have the >best compiler on the planet [on average -- YMMV]. Man, Am I unclear today.... It's late here... I was talking about their processors, not their compiler.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.