Re: Objective-C bugs and GCC releases

[Nicolas Roard]

Le 25 janv. 05, à 22:54, Patrick McFarland a écrit :

> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > I would indeed hold up the release because of C++ breakage.  C++ is a 
> > release-critical language; Objective-C is not.  That's very much 
> > analagous to the fact that IA32 GNU/Linux is a release-critical 
> > platform; other systems like SH ELF are not.
>
> How is Objective-C not a release-critical language?
>
> 1) Quite a few people use it
> 2) GCC is the only useful ObjC compiler out there
> 3) Apple would rather not deal with GCC dev fucktardism
> 4) Gnustep would rather not deal with GCC dev fucktardism

Please. First, you don't speak in the name of the GNUstep project or in 
the name of Apple, are you ?
Try to moderate your language a bit. Trying to flame more than what was 
already done won't improve things.

From my understanding, having ObjC considered as a critical release 
language or not won't change things; I doubt people
that don't care or don't know about ObjC will work on it if they don't 
want to, critical release language or not.. (or rather, I'm not sure it 
would
be a good approach).
Actually I guess the only reason C/C++ can be considered critical 
(apart from the obvious reason they are quite used..) is the fact
that a *lot* of gcc mainteners can help and work on them and are 
*interested* in doing so.

It's not the case with ObjC, well, too bad. We (ObjC devs) should try 
to be more implied in gcc, apparently.

I guess there was quite a lot of misunderstanding from ObjC devs, but 
well, that can be understandable -- gcc is the only ObjC compiler
(please don't bring POC here..), and suddenly people learn that the 
upcoming 4.x won't ship with a working ObjC...

Now if people here could calm down, furthermore as the bug was fixed by 
Alex..

thanks,

--
Nicolas Roard
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
 -Arthur C. Clarke