Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Baby X is bor nagain
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:02:50 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <v4sf7r$1eukr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v494f9$von8$1@dont-email.me> <v49t6f$14i1o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4bcbj$1gqlo$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <v4bh56$1hibd$1@dont-email.me> <v4c0mg$1kjmk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4c8s4$1lki1$4@dont-email.me> <20240613002933.000075c5@yahoo.com>
 <v4emki$28d1b$1@dont-email.me> <20240613174354.00005498@yahoo.com>
 <v4okn9$flpo$2@dont-email.me> <v4p37r$k32n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4pei3$m5th$2@dont-email.me> <v4q2gm$sib9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4s2lu$1c7bs$1@dont-email.me> <v4s3q6$1cgrl$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:13:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="24730d7a2aace3b15633a7cca7d6ca34";
	logging-data="1538715"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JkjjYDnPxGSAY9PSmaaXx5B6c0IzjLJQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/ghWcJipngH+cjgmH2PXE09X6L8=
In-Reply-To: <v4s3q6$1cgrl$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3026

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 18/06/2024 14:39, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 17/06/2024 21:24, bart wrote:
>> ...
>>> If you don't need optimised code right now, why would you invoke gcc
>>> rather than tcc? It's a no-brainer.
>> 
>> On virtually every occasion when I've heard someone claim that a given
>> decision is a no-brainer, I would generally make a different decision if
>> I actually applied my brain to the issue. This is no exception.
>> 
>
>So your brain would tell you to choose a tool which takes at least 10 
>times as long to do the same task?

No, "the task" isn't "compile a program", it's "develop a program",
which includes only a quite negligible amount of time spent compiling it.
What I know about TCC is relatively limited, but the Wikipedia article
is consistent with what I though I knew. It says that tcc supports all
of the features of C90, most of C99, and some gnu extensions. That is
not the dialect of C I want to write in. I want full conformance with
the latest official version of C, with any unintentional use of gnu
extensions flagged with a diagnostic.
Having to write my code in a crippled version of C would be a waste of
my time, and having to fix it to take advantage of the features of a
more modern version of C when I'm ready to optimize it would be a
further waste of time. I'd save far more development time by writing in
the same dialect of C from the very beginning, then I could ever
possibly save by dividing entirely negligible compile times by a factor
of 10.