Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Baby X is bor nagain
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:51:56 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <v5kfst$2svt3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v494f9$von8$1@dont-email.me> <v53i4s$33k73$2@dont-email.me>
 <v53lf7$34huc$1@dont-email.me> <v53vh6$368vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v54se1$3bqsk$1@dont-email.me> <20240624160941.0000646a@yahoo.com>
 <v5bu5r$va3a$1@dont-email.me> <20240624181006.00003b94@yahoo.com>
 <v5c86d$11ac7$1@dont-email.me> <JEheO.108086$ED9b.74955@fx11.iad>
 <v5cblg$11q0j$1@dont-email.me> <gEieO.108089$ED9b.25598@fx11.iad>
 <20240625113616.000075e0@yahoo.com> <mUzeO.141609$Cqra.55051@fx10.iad>
 <v5elql$1jmii$1@dont-email.me> <m3BeO.24907$Gurd.16179@fx34.iad>
 <v5empd$1jndv$2@dont-email.me> <v5eph4$1k6a9$1@dont-email.me>
 <87ed8jnbmf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v5jhls$2m7np$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5jm32$2nqvp$1@dont-email.me> <v5k3v2$2qllm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:51:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bad3dcf864bdf4ef3be34c1e31d5cb74";
	logging-data="3047331"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PGQryjH/OVs43zSWH8rlp9/n4UzCrHfA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:30bhNVEEaCb6yNG/ChcRoS8V+I4=
In-Reply-To: <v5k3v2$2qllm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5286

On 27/06/2024 18:28, bart wrote:
> On 27/06/2024 13:31, David Brown wrote:
>> On 27/06/2024 13:16, bart wrote:
> 

I'm snipping a lot, because answering it will not get us anywhere except 
more frustrated.

> 
> I do dislike brace-syntax, 0-based indexing, and case-sensitivity. Those 
> are common characteristics.
> 

I can fully appreciate preferences and opinions - likes and dislikes. 
It's the continued determination to fight things that is irrational and 
incomprehensible.  I happen to like these three things.  But if I am 
programming in Python (with indentation rather than braces), Lua (with 
1-based indexing) or Pascal (case insensitive), I shrug my shoulders and 
carry on.  I don't go to comp.lang.python, or comp.lang.lua and rant and 
rave about how terrible the language is and how my own tools are vastly 
better than anything else.

> 
>> Like most developers, I try to use the best tool for the job
> 
> Sure, you're a user, you don't get involved in devising new languages or 
> creating tools, you have to use existed, trusted products. But you let 
> that get in the way of your views with a low tolerance for anything 
> different or that seems amateurish or pointless.

That makes /no/ sense at all.

First, I am as capable as you or anyone else at finding things in C or 
any other language that I think are not as good as they could have been, 
or poor design decisions.  The fact that I am a user, not an 
implementer, is irrelevant - programming languages are made for the 
users, and the effort needed to implement them is of minor concern.

> 
> Over a decade ago I started looking at whole-program compilers which, if 
> I was more into optimising, would be lend themselves easily to 
> whole-program optimisation.
> 
> But while you will dismiss my own efforts out of hand, you do at least 
> appreciate the benefits of 'LTO' (which I consider a third rate version 
> of what I do, and considerably more complex).

To be clear - as I have stated /many/ times, I appreciate the effort 
needed to make your tools, and the achievement of making them.  What I 
dispute is your insistence that your tools are /better/ than mainstream 
tools.

> 
>> I have no "irrational hatred" of tcc - it is simply incapable (in a 
>> great many ways) of doing the job I need from a compiler, and for the 
>> jobs it /can/ do it is in no way better than the tools I already need 
>> and have.
> 
> 
> This is what I mean about you being incapable of being objective. You 
> dissed the whole idea of tcc for everyone. Whereas what you mean is that 
> it wouldn't benefit /you/ at all.

Much of what I say is clearly marked as being about /my/ uses.  But yes, 
I sometimes say that things that I believe apply to most people.  I've 
yet to hear of anything, from you or anyone else, to change my thoughts 
on these things.

> 
> I can understand that: if you have a dozen slow components of some 
> elaborate process, replacing one with a faster one would make little 
> difference.
> 
> My view is different: I already have /half/ a dozen /fast/ components, 
> then replacing just one with a slow product like 'gcc' makes a very 
> noticeable difference.
> 

No one doubts that gcc is slower than tcc.  That is primarily because it 
does vastly more, and is a vastly more useful tool.  And for most C 
compiles, gcc (even gcc -O2) is more than fast enough.  And it is free, 
and easily available on common systems.  Therefore there is no benefit 
to using tcc except in very niche cases.