🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <935@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> scc@cl.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Crawley) writes:
>
>>> Production language design should be an on-going evolutionary process.
>>> ... A new language version every 2 years sounds about right to me.
>
>> This is too frequent; five years might be reasonable, but not two.
>> I don't think the compiler validation suites, etc., would be able to
>> respond meaningfully to a revision cycle which was THAT frequent.
>
>There is no reason why the revisions should not be pipelined.  And
>what is wrong with some people using pre-validated compilers?  After
>all that is how much of the rest of the computing industry works at
>the moment.  It is often better to use a new, somewhat flakey compiler
>now if it offers significant benefits.
>

Are you serious???  It's better to use a somewhat flakey compiler???

Those of us trying to solve real world problems can't afford to use
a "slightly flakey compiler".  When shipping product to make money to
feed the kids, spending days tracking down weird bugs caused by flakey
compilers isn't the way to stay in business!

The ivory tower world makes some terrific contributions, but they can
keep their flakey compilers until such time as they aren't flakey any
more, thank you very much.  Personally, I usually skip any compiler that's
no at least to release 2.0 or later.  They're just not worth the trouble!


Claris Corp. | Michael R. Peirce
-------------+--------------------------------------
             | 5201 Patrick Henry Drive MS-C4
             | Box 58168
             | Santa Clara, CA 95051-8168
             | (408) 987-7319
             | AppleLink: peirce1
             | Internet:  peirce@claris.com
             | uucp:      {ames,decwrl,apple,sun}!claris!peirce