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>