not quite the same - it's at a miniscule portion of what the costs were 60 years ago - not to speak of the increased reliability of the new hardware and launch ops.

I have Linux, Windows and OSX on a Early 2015 MBP at home. The MBP doesn't "just work" any more than a Linux or (since Windows 7) even Windows does. It's a stupid myth.

SUN also seems to disagree with your view (now it does, it was the prominent proponent of leave): http://indy100.independent.co....

You do understand the difference between laws and regulations, right? http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

This is naive, to put it politely. Ask Norway. They are not in the EU, and yet have to comply with the "absurd EU regulations" (whatever those might be) if they want to place their product on the EU market. It's just that they don't have the right to vote on them. Swell. Besides, the GB is a part of the EU for a LONG time already. GB voted on those "absurd regulations" just as well. Now whining about them is dishonest populism. Think about something else: just how easy-peasy do you think will it be for the GB to negotiate good contracts with the EU? It took Swiss 8 years (!!!), and that was without everybody and their dogs being pissed at them. Oh, and Swiss had a lot to offer. GB much less so. So yes, the elderly and the rurals in the GB just royally screwed their country. Maybe also the EU as a such. No investor in their right mind will put their money in the GB for quite some time.

Religious inheritance of Europe is not only christianity. It is predominantly, but NOT ONLY. There is definitely nothing in the EU consitution defining it to be only about "white christians", as you originally claimed.

The EU Constitution doesn't have any references to christianity, much less to "white christians" being the only acceptable culture/group/whatever you wanted to say. There were some countries rooting for the inclusion of explicit reference to christianity into the consitution, but they lost. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for details.

I agree (except that I value compile time higher than you do, it seems, but clang doesn't seem to deliver THAT much in this area either), and that's why I can't do differently but wonder what the fuss is all about.

Replying (again) to my own post, just found out that llvm supports only DWARF3 debugging imformation, while gcc is on a DWARF4. One more reason to wonder about where the llvm buzz comes from.

Actually, it seems that Phoronix tests are the best available around - at least a quick search didn't reveal any further recent tests. Besides, that's what TFA links to.

If you wish to imply that Phoronix tests are somehow skewed in favour of GCC, why don't you provide a link to tests claiming otherwise?

Instead of only talking out of my a$$, I just compiled a small QT project of mine (8333 LOC, spread over 60 files (including auto generated moc files), lines counted with "wc -l"), with gcc 4.8.2 and with clang 3.5 (these are per default available on Ubuntu 14.04), and it seems that the compilation times are nearly identical:

CLANG:

real 0m26.100s
user 0m24.815s
sys 0m1.208s


GCC:

real 0m27.936s
user 0m26.715s
sys 0m1.755s


All files (including compilers, libraries and includes) are on an SSD. Difference of 2 seconds or some 7%. Not exactly to be ignored, but not enough to make me smile either. At least I didn't have to change much to get it to compile, except replacing 1.0d with (double)1.0.

What's the LLVM / clang fuss about anyway? I keep hearing about LLVM for years already, it's presented by its' supporters (of which many have never actually even tried it out, I bet!) as "The Solution To All (alleged) GCC Problems", but it somehow fails to replace the GCC as an omnipresent compilation system.

Until there is not a single Linux distribuition out there compiled with LLVM / clang, and there still is none, it will just not cut it.

Besides, as the Phoronix article shows, it's also not on-par performance-wise.

I'd love to move to a compiler with better / more understandable errors and warnings, especially for C++, and which compiles faster - but until the code does not execute at the same speed (and it seems it mostly lags behind GCC), and until it is not integrated into the system adequately (read: LLVM-based distribution), I do not see the point in switching.

Troll mod? I'd love to know why - what was factually wrong in what I wrote?

Disgusting presentation. The guy spits on the efforts of good people who set the base for what he is trying to "re-invent, just better" now and what he was working on for the past years. He goes at great lengths to explain how this-and-that is "oh so 90-ies" bad in X (things I never actually had a real problem with, and I am actively using X since early 90-ies; some of them completely irrelevant details) and to laugh at it while not providing even a SINGLE DAMN SCREENSHOT of the "new and better" stuff. Forgot the cable, yeah. So convenient. A plenitude of extensions, some of them obsoleted by now? Well, guess what - YOU was a part of the team who designed and wrote them in the first place!!! Nothing but hot air. The guy is a jerk and a poser, who loves insulting other people - as far as one can say judging on this video. If his attitude is representative for the whole Wayland team, then I don't have much faith the project will ever succeed. Yes, there are some technical merits to what he says, but I don't have the impression that he and his like have the capacity to do it better AND to make it to a stable and useable product. It takes much more to do so than what he displayed here. I'll be happy if they prove me wrong (every advance in Linux world is a good thing) but I wouldn't hold my breath. I now understand Canonical much better.

In USA it's way more than 20 for government contracts.