Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Why I use gcc Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:28:52 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <79a418d5-5782-43a3-8dc2-2a16343f3398@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c91660510313b0b3b2b18aebbb52bfad"; logging-data="20580"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mCahZAMl+MKPxtgYqhx9N" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BdylxX6BwlsSIhKIkE43t9p8b90= sha1:aO2mcibKs9S2gx/Y1tWMoQmJR6Q= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:94743 BartC writes: [...] > That's not the point. A program that translates the language specified > in one of the C standards has no need to be anywhere near that size. > > Isn't part of the 'spirit' of C about being 'lean and mean'? Some people > appear to have forgotten that. (Note that MSVC appears to be a C++ > compiler.) I'm fairly sure it functions both as a C compiler and as a C++ compiler, depending on how you invoke it. (To prove this, you should be able to compile a C program containing the declaration `int class;`.) In any case, your point seems to be that MSVC is bloated. You're probably right. The shortage of disk space on your personal system isn't really relevant to that point. (If I had that little free space on my system, I'd be doing something about it, but your own system is of course your concern.) What I fail to understand is what you hope to accomplish by complaining about the size of MSVC here. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"