On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Hendrik Boom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:11:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>> Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that >>>> the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many people understand how >>>> it works at all. In order to support STL containers holding GC >>>> objects, it will need to be modified. >>> >>> I'm sure there is a library of GC-managed components in C++. >> >> I'm sure there is too. In gcc we use the same data structures to >> support both GC and PCH. Switching to a set of C++ objects is likely to >> be a complex and ultimately unrewarding task. >> >> >>>> I don't know what you mean by your reference to the Cyclone variant of >>>> C, unless you are trying to say something about gcc's use of garbage >>>> collection. >>>> >>>> >>> Cyclone has many options for memory management. I don't know for sure >>> if there is a need for GC in GCC at all. >> >> I would prefer it if gcc didn't use GC, but it does, and undoing that >> decision will be a long hard task which may never get done. >> >>> Cyclone has a roots not only in C, but also ML. Some techniques like >>> pattern matching, aggregates, variadic arrays, tuples looks to be more >>> appropriate here than their C++'s metaprogrammed template analogues. >> >> I guess I don't know Cyclone. If you are suggesting that we use Cyclone >> instead of C++, I think that is a non-starter. We need to use a >> well-known widely-supported language, and it must be a language which >> gcc itself supports. >> >> Ian > > There are a number of languages that would probably be better-suited to > programming gcc than C or C++, on technical grounds alone.
That's great. We have more than just technical concerns. > But if it is a requirement for using a language that everyone > already knows it, we will forever be doomed to C and its insecure > brethren. > This has never been listed as a requirement. It is certainly a consideration. The main requirement for communities like GCC for something like changing languages is consensus or at least a large set of active developers willing to do something and the rest of them willing to not commit suicide if it happens. There are secondary requirements like "not stalling for years while moving languages", "not losing serious performance", etc. You are free to propose whatever language you like. It is unlikely you will get support from any of the active contributors simply saying we should use X because Y. The best way to show us the advantages of using some other languages is to convert some part of GCC to use it and show how much better it is. This is a big job, of course. Then again, tree-ssa was started by diego as a side project, and gained supporters and helpers as others decided to spend their time on it. You may find the same thing, in which case you may find it is not hard to convince people to move to some other language. You may find nobody agrees with you, even after seeing parts of gcc in this new language. I can guarantee you you will find nobody agrees with you if you sit on the sidelines and do nothing but complain. --Dan
