Re: gcc Experience..so post 3.0
So you only used GCC 3.0 and beyond. Which was after the throwaway and rewrite. It was the pre 3.0's that were total garbage.
Post 3.0 are mostly usable and not too buggy but I will always use an alternative if available. Usually LLVM based now. GCC breaks far too many basic principles of compiler tool sets. GCC was a mess because Stallman knew f*ck all about compilers and writing reliable software. And a lot of that incoherence has survived because of some terrible bad decisions in the early days.
I was referring to the pre 3.0 universe. Which was pre early 2000's. To those of us who used traditional and properly designed compiler tool sets long before GCC (and after) working in GCC land is like getting into a Lada after driving a Range Rover. Very basic stuff. Like having a well defined separate linker. There is a very good reason while all CLI compiler tool sets apart from GCC have a separate linker. It makes life much easier for people who have to do bare iron work. And those who dont Make takes care of housework. A properly designed traditional tool chain makes for full flexibility and customization. Stuff that is simple and straight forward in other compiler tools sets is usually drudgery and grief in GCC.
Saying that. I have been a very happy user of IDE's as well since the mid 1980's. A good source level debugger is worth it weight gold. But a JTAG debugger with full CPU hardware debug control is heaven. But when I have to do the real systems level work, out comes the relevant tool chain. To be tweaked to get the best results. Often by writing a new tool for the chain or modifying an existing one. Its amazing what one can do with that universal software duct tape, TCL_Interp().
Biting the hand that feeds IT
