Re: Baby X is bor nagain

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.