I get that, but it reminds me of the reasons people give for "our website works best in $browser".
There are also other less-obvious benefits where having multiple backends can illuminate bugs and deviations from standards, as well as having another set of warnings and static analysis passes. Once we go monoculture, it's also really hard to go back, since non-portable dependencies (both deliberate and accidental) start to pile up. Now we could deliberately retain these advantages by keeping non-clang compilers at at least tier-2, while leveraging clang where useful. (looks like not win64 yet perf-wise, anyways) It would be nice to establish our plan here. On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Anthony Jones <ajo...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, 30 May 2018 08:48:12 UTC+12, Jeff Gilbert wrote: >> It would be sad to see us standardize on a clang monoculture. > > It pays not to be sentimental about tools. We get better practicality and > productivity by focusing on clang. Using the same compiler across all > platforms means that we can do more with less effort. > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
