http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00193.html

Yeah, LLVM and Clang are designed as libraries to be used by other client programs. One of the main developers actually worked on similar stuff at Microsoft.

Apple is making use of LLVM and Clang in their IDE for exactly the kinds of things talked about in the article, replacing custom parsers used for syntax highlighting or expression parsing in the debugger.

This is just the direction compilers are going these days. I wonder if older compilers like GCC will be able to adapt or if they'll just continue being monolithic.

It's only this article which is focusing on the small things. The actual budget proposal focuses on cutting big ticket items like DoD and whatnot. The cuts discussed in the article are about $12 billion while that's only a tiny portion of the $1 trillion in cuts in the actual proposal. So yes, let's keep the discussion on the big expenses.

That should read '10x' not '100x'

We've had long term plans for decades now. I support them too but so far they've done nothing.

Maybe this won't do anything either, but I think we're at the point where we really can't be picky. I see too much spending as one of the main underlying problems, so even if there are small-scale negative consequences as a result of this being implemented I think overall it will still be a big help.

The plan does include substantial cuts to the DoD and many of the other areas outside the DoD which are still military spending.

The plan cuts $1 trillion, not just the $11.4 billion pointed out in this article. Did you actually take a look at the plan?

All of those are eliminated or substantially cut. Did you actually look at the plan?

The plan actually cuts $1 trillion. The article is only focusing at some of the tiniest cuts for some reason.

Closing down the department of energy doesn't mean abandoning nuclear weapons. Although the plan doesn't mention it specifically it does move important functions from the eliminated departments to other departments. I've heard people in the Paul camp say that nuclear weapons should be in the DoD instead of hidden in the DoE. Presumably that's what would be done under this plan.

What do you mean "Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget?" Did you look at the plan? The very first item is cuts in the DoD. In fact the cuts there are well over 100x all the items you listed combined.

Right, these departments are tiny relative to the amount cut ($1 trillion). The proposal does cut the DoD budget as well. And it's still not enough to balance the budget.

This budget proposal cuts more than just a tiny sliver of the DoD. It starts with $200 billion in cuts (off the CBO baseline) in the DoD the first year.

I'm guessing you're talking about the DoD? This budget is cutting $1 trillion, which is more than the DoD misplaces. This year's budget deficit is around $1.6 trillion, so a cut of $1 trillion really is on the order of the cuts needed. Also this budget proposal does cut some of that military spending you reference. So I think calling this "a little trimming" is disingenuous.

That's a common misconception of libertarian philosophy.

It's not an issue of not caring if bad things happen. It's an issue of the morality of using violence to take away someone's ability to voluntarily choose whether or not to do something. When you refuse to use violence, force, and threats to take that choice away from an individual it's not the same thing as saying any choice they make is equally good.

There's another breed of libertarian that focuses on utilitarian arguments, such as moral hazard and unintended consequences. For example one might oppose government flood insurance on the basis that forcing people not subject to the risk of flooding to take on some costs of those that choose to take that risk will cause more people to build and live in high risk areas. In essence the involuntary nature of the insurance causes more destruction and suffering in the event of a flood, than would have otherwise occurred.