Sometimes I want to design a simpler C-like language and build toolchain for it from the scratch, with no historical baggage. Obviously optimization story will be very poor, gcc carries hundreds of super-qualified man-years of optimization work. But I wonder if it'll be that bad. Modern computers are fast.
Looking at this, I feel that while there seem to be many different actual implementations, they really boil down to just a few similar core principles
'Shocking', 'striking', 'disappointing', 'will shock you' -- the article is padded with hyperbole.
This is obviously humor.
You stopped at the lexicon, check how it's used more thoroughly!
Struck by (his) Poes I suppose.
Happens to the best of us :-)
Gee I wonder why Raymond would do that
I have no context. Was that sarcasm ? I have no idea if this is expected or unexpected of Raymond.
Try again? You don't really need context here.
Blog said: "As with all shocking discoveries, this one will <strike>shock</strike> disappoint you."
You complained: "'Shocking', 'striking', 'disappointing', 'will shock you' -- the article is padded with hyperbole."
Damn, reader mode doesn't keep the strike, I thought it was an English idiom I didn't know about xD
He found that gambling was going on in here!
gcc is gone, like clang. Those are c++ abominations. Not worth more than /opt.
Prefer, tinycc, cproc, scc, assembly.
Sometimes I want to design a simpler C-like language and build toolchain for it from the scratch, with no historical baggage. Obviously optimization story will be very poor, gcc carries hundreds of super-qualified man-years of optimization work. But I wonder if it'll be that bad. Modern computers are fast.