I’m not arguing that certain people using particular standards could consider LLVM bloated and I’m certainly not going to argue that by certain standards C++ could be considered bloated. But for users of LLVM, be it via clang or Zig cc or GHC, it seems to work just fine. Are your complaints from the perspective of a compiler dev (or a general dev who wants to be able to more easily open up and tune a compiler) or are they just as a user? Also, for native binary compilation of performance sensitive applications, how many options are there in common use for the major languages? Your opinion seems pretty severe, so I’m just trying to see why that is.
> This has been my conviction for the past 10 years, and I'm glad I never had to touch llvm with a ten foot pole.
Out of curiosity: what do you touch with a ten foot pole? I'd be hard-pressed to call GCC or MSVC much better in that regard, and I can think of very few others that are in use anymore.
I mean, I've definitely dreamt about using SBCL or Clozure for things other than Lisp (seeing as they both include their own compilers not dependent on GCC/LLVM), but I've seen effectively zero effort in that direction.
Folks who have achieved great things with llvm (and C++) have done so 'despite' what they used, not 'because of' it.
This has been my conviction for the past 10 years, and I'm glad I never had to touch llvm with a ten foot pole.
I had no doubts it'll soon be surpassed by a common-sense no-bullshit tool-chain.
Has Zig cc achieved that? Great. No? It will or someone (or I) will develop an alternative that will.