> I am more concerned about an aspect of the language the clang tools are > written in, namely the use of object-oriented paradigm of c++ (it is a > phony > paradigm, one that does not exist in nature or reality, which explains > the failure rate of C++ OO projects historically and current usage > decline). > I sense that the relative slowness of generated code has to do with it. > Perhaps > some other attributes of that code's quality too, even if not now, then in > the > future.
Yes, this is one thing really puzzled me. Maybe it's related to Apple's affinity to Objective-C? -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-Clang-tp5715861p5721495.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
