It's not about the superiority of languages it's what the programmers who use it feel superior to.

In other words, if you really are smarter than the mass of men, knowing that is not arrogance.

His most recent rant about C++ smacks of arrogance, because it's a very strongly held opinion backed only by incorrect facts, poor logic and outright logical fallacies. He is smarter than "the masses" but he's not smarter than people like Stroustrup, Sutter, Bright, Alexandrescu, Stepanov and such like. They are all preeminent in their fields and very, very smart people.

C++ proponents aren't very humble

What like Strostrup? Sutter? Alexandrescu? Some evidence required for your bold claim.

neither is the language itself

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I also get upset with people constantly trying to shove C++ on top of C projects, just because they don't know C very well.

I also get upset by people needlessly sticking to C because they don't understand C++ very well. Your point?

Here is a flow chart to decide whether to buy Oracle products:

<Do you enjoy being utterly fucked over?> Yes--> Buy Oracle. No--> Run for the hills.

I've been at two places which have been Oracle'd. It's like being pwn3d except you end up $10,000,000 poorer. You also end up with less dignity than the inevitable tebagging you might get in Halo.

But the shift within the Linux kernel code was still valid C (C++?) code, so it was a compiler problem, even though it didn't affect most programs.

The things Linux are doing are way way outside the C spec. Nopt surprising, since the C spec doesn't have much to say about interrupt routines. It's an intersection of obscure techniques, one particular platform and obscure compiler options not all being implemented together properly.

GCC is very standards compliant in that it will compile almost all standards compliant code correctly.

As I said, all compilers have non portable extensions. If GCC went and DIAF as you so desire, you'd just get people writing to the non portable extensions of the other compilers. So then you'd move the hate along.

What this translates to is that you hate the most popular compiler.

Linus is actually a very humble guy

His rants about C++ do not sound like the rants of a humble person.

u wot m8?

Seriously I have no idea which part of my post you're replying to---something about your lack of quoting.

haha good call. I didn't realise 4.9.1 was out. Should have wageredon the next release version, not a specific number.

GCC is a mess that has been getting consistently worse since 3.0. It's so bad that compiling GCC with GCC, with any CPU optimizations enabled, produces a non-working compiler.

[citation needed]

It just keeps getting bigger and slower, and has a great many proprietary GCC-isms that open source developers keep using, not even realizing they're bugs.

Every single compiler out there offers nonportable extensions.

Either you're not looking (myopia is fun), or you have very little experience with other modern compilers.

I could level the same complaint at you. The other compilers have more. Like full up ICE crashes.

Only true if you drink rms' kool-aid...

Ah and now we get to the root of it. You've decided to throw logic and facts to the wind and just go off on an I-hate-RMS-so-I-hate-GCC-by-proxy rant.

Grow up.

Really? I hate GCC with a passion. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 'gccisms' that affect code portability to other POSIX platforms. GCC can go DIAF for all I care.

So, tell me mr GCC hater, which compilers don't have non-portable extensions?

Claiming the GCC crew will 'fix this bug in short order' is like claiming Obama is leading the charge in transparent government.

Care to take a wager that it will be fixed in 4.9.1?

GCC has never been a solid production compiler.

Utter crap, bordering on an outright lie.

The list of systems I've developed on is something like: PCs, Sun, SGI, HP, AIX, PICs, 8051, Blackfin, ARM, AVR and probably a bunch I've forgotten about. I've used very many compilers over the years. There has not been one that can match GCC in solidity and general lack of bugs.

Not. A. Single. One.

But apparently "production compiler" in your world means something completely different.

You have that pretty much backwards. Without Linux, GCC wouldn't matter to anyone. Linux can be built with other compilers with a little effort, ask Intel about it.

As far as I know, it's been GCC, Intel (which is useless for Linux's most popular platforms) and TCC. I don't know of anyone who actually uses a non GCC compiled kernel.

You're pretty clueless. Intel would beg to differ. No one that matters compiles high performance code on GCC, they use the Intel compiler.

Ah no TRUE scotsman would use GCC. Got it.

Oh gosh a compiler bug! The world is going to end and GCC is terminally broken for ever and ever and ever. Life happens, and occasionally that includes compiler bugs. I've seen fewer bugs in GCC than any other production compiler ever.

Anyway, it seems like GCC is implementing a very obscure compiler option incorrectly in some circumstances which causes a crash.

But of course this is cue for lamentations of how awful and braindead GCC is and so much drama.

End result, the GCC people will fix this bug in short order (what are GCC point releases for anyway), and distributers will probably have a patch package out for 4.9.0 before 4.9.1 ships (what are distributors for anyway?) and the world will keep turning and GCC will go back from being the buggy broken braindead piece of shit to yet again being the most solid production compiler in existence.

It's a little ironic that the he's so quick to attack the GCC people. The success of Linux is 100% built off the success of GCC. There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence and without GCC being bulletproof, Linux would never have been solid.

While repeatedly compressing, don't forget to write down in which sequence you need to apply the decompression.

Pretty much. I've found that I can do this. Essentially for N bits, I've got a large family (2^N) of compression algorithms. I pick the best one and write down it's number. The resulting data is 0 bits long, but there's a little metadata to store.

Thats cute, you think Outlook is an email client.

It's not of course. It's a binary forged of pure evil of which email is one necrotic outgrowth.

It's integration with Lync makes the email part of it look almost good.