Re: [dev] Yet another "sane alternatives" thread

From: Sylvain Bertrand <>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 01:23:14 +0100

1) oh... no need to get into llvm and to make a patch... how convenient.
2) no, cmake is a c++ pile of steaming cr*p, period.
3) why do you think I am into llvm code? I am going to stare at this
on-going sabotage and do nothing?
4) only gcc can build linux... for now. But clang/llvm work paves the
way for "others" too (if it's properly done...).
5) there is only one iso c++98 compiler written in C: gcc 4.7.4 (and
it's totally unable to compile llvm or recent gcc, you have to use
intermediate gccs). I know because I am the guy who made the llvm guys
realized their pile of cr*p was not able to compile anymore with gcc
4.7.4 (and they went gcc 4.8 as a minimum requirement at the time)
6) parallel build of llvm with cmake is only available with ninja.
Maybe they fixed their unix makefile generator. Some generated code
use python generator (like in mesa).
7) ... and dwm was hacked in plain simple C.

Since llvm is pure c++ madness and gcc is still far from being one:
gnu gcc sucks less than clang/llvm. yes, GNU gcc sucks less than BSD
clang/llvm, wow.
Then better stick with gnu gcc till the "brillant" minds at gnu
steering comittee made gcc worth the same amount of c++ cr*p than
How can you be so wrong? Wake up and un-wash your brain!

On 12/25/18, Cág <> wrote:
> Sylvain Bertrand wrote:
>> ???
>> clang/llvm is a c++ abomination: a massive pile of c++ cr*p. If you
>> dislike the GNU make, wait to read the c++ code of cmake, the build
>> system of clang/llvm, not to mention ninja (something in the horrible
>> python3 or python2). I am into llvm code right now, and I feel like
>> working in an asylum: getting in the heads of sick minds, and I
>> _really_ mean it.
>> Your are aiming at replacing gcc (which is in the process of becoming
>> of pile of steaming c++ cr*p), by an actual steaming pile of it!
>> The _only_ benefit is to clean up the linux build system in order to
>> ease the addition of alternative toolchains.
>> Actually, it's even worse than not being suckless: I don't want open
>> source software to be locked down by organized sickos who obfuscated
>> critical code thanks to a language with a super complex and rich
>> syntax.
>> *Anything* c++ is _not_ suckless, actually light years away from it.
>> Come to your senses, open your eyes!
> I totally understand your emotions. A couple of points though:
> 1) LLVM and Clang have worked in our use cases, most of the time
> even without patching.
> 2) CMake is big, it sucks, but for such a huge project LLVM is, it's
> fine, it's a compromise. Just like LLVM is a compromise. It doesn't
> fix bad code, which is the cause, it cures symptoms by solving
> problems GNU created.
> 3) We need a C++ compiler for Mesa.
> 4) There are currently no other open-source toolchains that can build
> the Linux kernel.
> 5) There are no C++ compilers written in C (or C99 so it can be
> bootstrapped with a C99 compiler).
> 6) You are not required to use ninja or Python to build LLVM. In
> fact, I did it without having both.
> 7) wmi, the predecessor of wmii, the predecessor of dwm, was written
> in C++:
> A suckless solution is something that works, and sucks less. LLVM
> sucks less that the GNU toolchain. Unfortunately, for a desktop or
> similar Linux project I can't think of something that sucks less
> than LLVM. Unless you write a new kernel, a new graphics stack,
> a new windowing system in ANSI C/C99, you are glued to using either
> of these. Or Plan 9.
> --
> caóc
Received on Wed Dec 26 2018 - 01:23:14 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Dec 26 2018 - 01:24:08 CET