[linux-audio-dev] [ot] [rant] gcc, you let me down one time too many

[Tim Goetze]

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

> Tim Goetze wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I don't know if it's undefined behaviour; I don't read
>> ISO compiler ABI standards (if they exist in the first place). I was
>> simply trusting that common sense would always allow this
>> cross-language subclassing, apparently I was wrong.
>
> Trusting that unspecified/undocumented characteristics will remain
> the same across versions is asking for trouble.

I readily admit I'm a fool, but I must insist that the g++ developers 
are fools just the same (albeit of different caliber), even if that 
offers me little consolation.

> Well I really like to separate the C and C++. C is unashamedly a
> low level language. C++ OTOH tries to be both low level and high
> level. In comparison to C, C++ is a poor low level language.
> Compared to Python or Ocaml, C++ is a poor high level language.

C++ for all practical purposes simply does what I want and gives me 
low-level control where I need it. I've never looked at -S output and 
found that C would surely and significantly improve the output, it 
was just what I expected and accepted.

The flaws I find with C++ are not with the language itself, I find 
them clearly with the fickle gcc implementation. That's not to say 
your point of view isn't valid, rather it is one I rarely if ever 
assume.

> I also find Ocaml a better high level language than Python because
> it is strictly and statically typed as well as compiling to native
> binaries which come close to the speed of C.

A very valid point given your preferences; however what you perceive 
as Python's flaws (most prominently easily provoked runtime errors) I 
lightheartedly accept as necessary consequences of the language's open 
and simple-minded character that I hold so dear.

> I have done some seriously difficult code in Ocaml; tasks that in
> C or C++ would a nightmare of complexity and/or endless futzing
> about with trivial minor details. It is not the ideal programming
> language, but for some kinds of tasks it beats every other
> programming language I've ever seen.

I can imagine it will be the closest to perfect solution in some 
(maybe even many) circumstances and that it could be a welcome tool 
for me too; however I'm pretty much sold on Python as my high-level 
language of choice and very reluctant to diversify in computer 
language literacy any further.

Cheers, Tim