>What if we take C++
>No, no, hear me out. We take C++
>and everything bad about
>Make the abhorrent syntax even worse
>Make the compile times even more agonizing
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*wheeze*heheheeheheeheheheeheheeeee
>I feel so productive
Do they like it so much because it gives them time to dial8 between builds?
inb4 cope, ywnbaw
>muh heckin loc
I don't care how long it takes, I have 128 cores and I just need the binary to be fast
You're gonna need it to keep up with a 20 year old single core tcc compiler.
Oh, wait... 350*128 = 32000
You need 512 cores AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAH
>irrelevant toy that generates dogshit binaries
oh wow I'm so sad
You use GCC for release build, moron. Which you may note is still more that 10x faster
I use gcc always tcc is worthless
Well if you're just fizzbuzzing then yeah
>I don't care about anyone but myself
classic
I write software for free. If you want me to care for you then pay me, loser.
what are you on about, anon?
did you forget your pills again?
this homie really hates a programming language this much lmaooooooooo
@101137692 (You)
yes, tcc is good for fizzbuzz because its performance is irrelevant
>Performance is an issue for debug builds
Room temp IQ
>chibi-sized
oh the cringe
They fixed C++ and called it C#.
Good morning saar
>abhorrent syntax
What's so abhorrent about it?
You have :: for scope resolution
-> for pointers
<> for template arguments
. for member selection
T(*p)() for function pointers
And just a few more.
C++'s syntax is really not that bad compared to Rust or Haskell.
>agonizing compile times
Again, not that bad at all.
C++ might be slow, but C isn't fast to compile either.
>defaults
the mistake here is believing that there should be defaults for anything, did you know that very good real friends have some set of customs that you won't see if just greeting a stranger? You're a cattle if your expression needs "defaults", C++ is a language for frick sake.
you are a moron defaults can be simple things like borrow by default, immutable by default etc. these things are obvious and intuitive in Rust due to its explicit nature while c++ has random thing that frick up if you don't know the language details. This is due to their obsession with C its not for backward compatibility like D show. There is a huge amount of additional things you need to keep in mind to write modern c++ thats why cppfront for example exists they enable the boilerplate you otherwise are going to write anyway. Read some modern cpp you will see it everywhere the mental gymnastics required to make stuff work as expected is huge.
>obvious and intuitive in Rust
which is why there's so much documentation on it, it's just so obvious...
>There is a huge amount of additional things you need to keep in mind to write modern c++
simply untrue
>Read some modern cpp
not interested in reading code that prompted Linus Torvalds to write a rant about C++ programmers. Only my code matters, it is simple and perfect.
>>No, no, hear me out. We take C++
>>and everything bad about
what sucks about c++ is terrible defaults, missing functions in the std, shit build system, shit template system and implicit behavior all of which Rust fixed. They have failed with the borrow checker but its still a good language that makes the job easier if you think about the problem first.
>Cniles care about compilation speeds because they need to recompile their code hundreds of times to debug all the memory leaks
>RusTitans simply write it correctly the first time
dont worry i get it, more keystrokes makes you feel like a hacker, lol
you both are the same, actually, "useful" rust programs are just clones of coreutils
>All of her (his) Rust programs are rewrites
>20% of the features
>BUT coloured rainbow terminal output :O
>fifty-precented in 3 months and soo to be rerewr-tten
>C++ might be slow, but C isn't fast to compile either.
Are you blind or just an illiterate monkey repeating shit from orange site tards?
Linux takes 5 hours to compile on my old laptop.
With an optimized build for 30 million lines of code, is that a big issue (also it's locked into GNU C...)? If it were written in C++, it would have taken ~60 hours or ~70 hours for Rust.
If you think so, go try building chromium next. You can report back next week with how long it took
Yes it is, when GCC builds itself thrice and takes only 6 hours. Same GCC that has multiple frontends and multiple compilers including compiler that compiles Linux.
Then go tell Linus to stop being a homosexual and support TCC
>A kernel compilation is performed in 8 seconds
>https://github.com/seyko2/tccboot
>Muh C is slow to compile
>just gimp your runtime performance bro
no thanks, troony
>REEEEEEEE, I MUST HAVE OPTIMIZED BUILDS FOR DEBUGGING
tcc for development, gcc for release