Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:51:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program Message-ID: <1340574699711-5721495.post@n5.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <loom.20120624T221657-6@post.gmane.org> References: <4FCF9333.70201@speakeasy.org> <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191952250.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200618290.46371@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <26.30.12873.06EE2EF4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> <20120621230302.GB575@hemlock.hydra> <loom.20120624T221657-6@post.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I am more concerned about an aspect of the language the clang tools are > written in, namely the use of object-oriented paradigm of c++ (it is a > phony > paradigm, one that does not exist in nature or reality, which explains > the failure rate of C++ OO projects historically and current usage > decline). > I sense that the relative slowness of generated code has to do with it. > Perhaps > some other attributes of that code's quality too, even if not now, then in > the > future. Yes, this is one thing really puzzled me. Maybe it's related to Apple's affinity to Objective-C? -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-Clang-tp5715861p5721495.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1340574699711-5721495.post>