> > both of which are more or less crappy xterm (not vt100, not vt220) emulators > The fact that they consume less, work faster, have clean and actually > readable code > > which you can hack through without symptoms of nausea -- all these > make tham crappier than the xterm?! All the cars in the world more > or less emulate each other, have a wheel and engine, so screw the > innovation! Let's stick with that Ford Model T vehicle, it's a real > thing. > > Really, no offence please, I just simply don't get it.
> As for GCC, I guess, I realize the complexity of the problem. Still, > why not make a split. Like Clang for i386/amd64 guys with all the > new and fancy and then make a balanced transition slowly phasing out > aging architectures? It is clear you don't understand the difficulty involved in this area. We don't know who you are. What we do know, is that it takes us about 2-3 years to move forward in gcc land, dragging the older architectures forwhat. Basically, further splits are unmaintainable. We have been trying for years to ensure that there are fewer differences between the have and have-not architectures; what you suggest stands against that goal. Your position seems to be that splits are the only way forward. Our position is that if that was the case, where's the diffs to get us at least partially forward, so that we can temporarily split, knowing that we can eventually unsplit? But there are no diffs in your mail. There's just bleating advocacy trying to tell us what to do. If you want to have an opinion around here, you've got to do some of the work, realize that? Recommendations don't count for as much as actual diffs which solve problems.
