John Floren wrote:
I'd like it if Linux wasn't built around the many weirdnesses of GCC
X.Y.Z, and heaven help you if you want to compile with a non-GCC
compiler.
I've heard tales (from reputable people who have been doing Unix
longer than I've been alive) of not being able to build GCC with
various previous versions.
The toolchain is huge, and the whole thing just seems baroque as hell.
Have I been bitten by any of these things? Well, I have had software
fail to compile for no reason other than having the wrong GCC version
(no, don't remember what software, seems like half of the Linux source
out there won't even compile most of the time), the others, not yet.
However, all the real programming I've done in the last couple years
has been in Plan 9 with the Plan 9 editor, the Plan 9 dialect of C,
and the Plan 9 compilers and linkers (8c, 8l, 6c, 6l, qc, ql, etc.).
I'm rather dreading the MPI programming I'll soon have to do for my
Multi Processor Systems course, which will be POSIX C (with MPI added
in), written in vi or emacs unless I can compile one of my favored
Plan 9 editors on the cluster, and compiled with GCC.
I guess to each his/her own, but I've never had such issues compiling on
Linux. I often have issues with some include file or library not being
present, but I don't blame GCC for that.
I think there are better compilers out there for specific platforms
(Intel I understand makes a very good compiler for x86 targets), but I
must say I am impressed by a toolchain I can compile with multiple
targets and then compile code for 3 targets with suitable command line
switches.
I didn't realize there's a lot of call for Plan9 out there, but I'm not
up on all things. In my world, there is a distinct advantage to knowing
GCC (any platform).
And, I know, given the topic I am somewhat hijacking, folks won't care
to hear this, but the "good enough" seems to often best the "best",
because it's, well, good enough.
Jim