Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: No disrespect to GCC, but why not LLVM? (Score -1, Offtopic) 77

by DoofusOfDeath (#49531241) Attached to: GCC 5.1 Released

Given the nice, modular nature of LLVM, I would think even the GCC developers would find it to be a more enjoyable best to work on.

Any idea why most GCC developers don't simply port their front-ends / back-ends of choice to LLVM, and walk away from GCC?

I know there's the licensing issue, which I assume matters to some heavy-duty OSS advocates. But in my experience most programmers who work with OSS aren't super passionate about GPL vs. Berkeley -style licensing.

Comment: Is it a matter of sexual attraction? (Score 2) 599

If it's a matter of not having students who are sexually attracted to each other, they have a serious logistical problem:

  • You can't have any girl with a straight boy.
  • You can't have any boy with a straight girl.
  • You can't have a gay girl with any girl.
  • You can't have a gay boy with any boy.

I'm not positive, but I think you'd need something like this:

  • It's only okay to pair a gay boy with a gay girl,. Or else each needs his/her own dedicated school
  • Every bisexual student needs his/her own dedicated school
  • All straight girls can be in the same school.
  • All straight boys can be in the same school.

Comment: Re:What happens... (Score 1) 599

When they ace it, end up in one of the ultra competitive CS schools (or work environment) and haven't been exposed to whatever it is that causes female students to not do well right now, all in one shot? It would even out eventually, but the first few batches will be in for a rude awakening.

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs! Well, actually, if they're female eggs than the federal government will be all over you. But if they're male eggs, screw `em. Because, you know, equality.

Comment: Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score 1) 517

I appreciate your comment. I suspect that everyone is to some extent ideologically driven. I think it matters quite a bit what the ideology is, and what ours is, and how strongly each of us clings to it, if we hope to come to agreement on an issue.

Either way, welcome to the wrong side of history.

Could you explain more about when you mean by being on the "wrong side of history"? I find it an interesting concept, but I'm not positive what you mean by it.

Comment: Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score 4, Insightful) 517

Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.

Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.

You'll need to define those terms carefully before you have any hope of persuading us.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.