On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 17:40, Dallas Clarke <DClarke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The heart of this issue is that GCC is not compatible with MS VC++, by > defining wchar_t as 4-bytes and not providing any 16-bit Unicode support - > it just going to be too hard to continue porting to Linux. > Then why does GCC need to change, rather than MSVC++, which caused the problem in the first place? Why shouldn't MSVC++ be using UTF-32 instead of UTF-16? strchr is a good example of one way in which UTF-32 is a better fit, and I have yet to see any reason why UTF-16 is better, other than "well, Windows is installed all over the place". > At the end of the day if you want to live in a world where you only consider > yourself - then you can live in that world by yourself. Like you said, if I > don't like it I can use another language and GCC will become irrelevant, you > can all go your own separate way. > I suspect you'll find that rather a high percentage of other languages either use GCC indirectly, or require GCC to build themselves or their runtimes. > Also I have written my own scripting language, designed to add functionality > post installation, its not that hard. > Which, I expect, didn't even need to be turing complete, let alone deal with mountains of legacy code, dozens of platforms, or backwards compatability. A bad interpreter is trivial, I agree. ~ Scott
