Oh no, Zig is going down the Elm path
File for divorce from LLVM
161–167 of 167 posts
Re: File for divorce from LLVM
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your theory is that because I have seen abusive content, my sense of humor is now so broken that the things I find funny are objectively bad? That makes no sense at all. Also, it's wild to see that somebody who's been using this site about 4% of the time I have telling me that I just don't get the context. Sure, bub. Your personal preferences just happen to be objectively correct, and mine are due to my ignorance and…
> Your theory is that because I have seen abusive content, my sense of humor is now so broken that the things I find funny are objectively bad? No, I did not present this theory, in my actual comment or any implication it made. My theory is that if your job is dealing with abusive comments, perhaps you aren't judging the non-abusive comments properly in terms of what constitutes a bad comment. All kinds of bad commen…
Your theory was unclear. Don't get cranky when people do their best to interpret your lack of clarity.
I did not say my job is dealing with abusive comments. If it were, your theory would still make no sense; being a professional judge of content makes you better at evaluating content, not worse. Some jokes are considered bad comments here, many aren't. Which is irrelevant, because the comment you're grumping about was not a joke.
And I will note that you carefully dodged the heart of my point, which is that you are confusing your personal preferences with objective standards. And although you've quibbled in the neighborhood of the point quite a bit, you haven't addressed the ridiculous notion that these "are some of the worst kind of comments".
If you'd like to complain about bad HN comments, I'd say being querulous is not great, and then carefully avoiding dealing with substantive criticism is well worse.
Re: File for divorce from LLVM
#163There's a typo in the article: it should be "all our bug are belong to us" (rather than "all our bugs")
Re: File for divorce from LLVM
#164Another angle on this:
As it is know, Uber - and some other heavily-capitalized firms (BigTech or otherwise) - use Zig (at least) for "straightforward" C++ compilation.
- What about asking your managers to seriously fund the Zig project?
It's only fair from all the value you're getting from it. And, then, reinventing an important part of the huge wheel that's LLVM wouldn't be such a seemingly unfeasible tall order.
Re: File for divorce from LLVM
#165My feeling is that if Zig drops C++ support, there seems to be enough momentum on the C++-dependent users, that they will just fork Zig... Can't LLVM be optional, and have unit tests guarantee that it works as before? The above, or - as mentioned elsewhere, implement a C++ compiler in Zig: quickly, and before making any breaking changes - quite a tall order. Or bring into Zig an existing pure-C, C++ compiler. ...Tiny…
...wild guesses as in extending them, that is.
Of course, GCC could be brought in, and compiled with Zig ;)
Re: File for divorce from LLVM
#166Another angle on this: As it is know, Uber - and some other heavily-capitalized firms (BigTech or otherwise) - use Zig (at least) for "straightforward" C++ compilation. - What about asking your managers to seriously fund the Zig project? It's only fair from all the value you're getting from it. And, then, reinventing an important part of the huge wheel that's LLVM wouldn't be such a seemingly unfeasible tall order.
Uber has a support contract[0] with the Zig Software Foundation.
Re: File for divorce from LLVM
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is how languages become a success on the market, either being pushed by the platform owner no matter what, or by having a framework written in them that everyone feels like using. Everything else are aspiring extras in the cinema of programing languages, waiting on the sidelines for that major role that will come someday, it really will, one just has to believe enough.
Counterexample: python
Yeah, python filled an essential gap of a easy, high level language.