On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Richard Kenner >> <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I would mind, because it's not MY issue, but RMS's! I don't want >>>>> to speculate why RMS might not want to use C++ >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is non argument: RMS has not not contributed any executable >>>> code for GCC, and even less the C++ front-end, for YEARS now. >>>> >>> >>> What does that have to do with expressing philosophical beliefs about how >>> software development should be done? >>> >> >> You asserted >> >> I don't want to speculate why RMS might not want to use C++ >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> But, in this case the users of C++ would be the GCC developers. >> Those are the ones directly suffering the handcuffs. >> > > I wouldn't generalize things that broadly -- not everyone sees C++ in a > positive light.
I'm fully aware of that. > Personally I see things in C++ I like, but I also see > things in C++ (and more specifically how it's commonly used) that I think is > horribly bad. Well, the request was not about the full gamut of C++, but rather a subset. And the time of the discussion, I thought the subset was quite conservative. Every programming language can be abused -- and I don't think I've made an exception for C++. -- Gaby
