Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:28:17 -0500 (CDT)
From:      Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Why Clang
Message-ID:  <201206221228.q5MCSHHa041669@mail.r-bonomi.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211929540.5130@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org  Thu Jun 21 12:39:02 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:30:23 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
> To: "Robison, Dave" <david.robison@fisglobal.com>
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> > Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
> >
> > Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
>
> Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC.
>
> Politics won.

Liar.   *Quality*, mantainability, and standards compliance won.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206221228.q5MCSHHa041669>