Subject: Re: But why?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Holo.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 10/23/1996 20:33:35
> GCC is pretty cool. It has a lot of useful stuff that the commercial
> vendors haven't picked up yet. The inlining works, the assembler
> interface is good, the -Wall is great (checks printf strings and
> lints them against the arguments). Etc.
Well, -W could use a lot of improvement; I'd really like to be able to
use -Werror for most warnings but downgrade a few selected ones back to
just warnings. (Perhaps someday I'll do it even without any reason to
think it'll get back into anyone's tree, just 'cause it'll be so useful
>> You're speaking to a wide range of audiences, and calling something
>> broken when it isn't is not a good idea.
> When talking to David, or other passionate kernel jocks, "broken"
> translates to "not as good as it could be". If it could bebetter, it
> is "broken". It's a nice, albeit unusual, definition of "broken".
> It is not the normal "it gives you the wrong answer" sort of broken.
It is also an essentially useless definition of "broken", both (a)
because nobody else in the known universe uses it that way, thereby
defeating the point of language (namely, communication), and (b)
because by that definition, _everything_ is "broken". (Is there
_really_ any software you think couldn't be _any_ better?)
01 EE 31 F6 BB 0C 34 36 00 F3 7C 5A C1 A0 67 1D