I know that both GCC and LLVM back-ends exist. Now, why do you think neither is used anywhere? (well, the LLVM one seems very new so it will need time regardless)
Also, it is not gogcc, it is gccgo. You may try to handwave away this but the above is legitimate criticism of very real Go weaknesses as observed on the example of this library
you're not wrong, but i don't think that you're presenting the argument in a way that is going to be well received.
hopefully both gccgo and any llvm backed implementations eventually mature to production grade. I think the thing that'll hold them back is that the toolchain is (by definition) completely different. 'go build .' is pretty nice.
the biggest value they bring is that unclear parts of the specification=be brought to light and clarified.
I know that both GCC and LLVM back-ends exist. Now, why do you think neither is used anywhere? (well, the LLVM one seems very new so it will need time regardless)
Also, it is not gogcc, it is gccgo. You may try to handwave away this but the above is legitimate criticism of very real Go weaknesses as observed on the example of this library
you're not wrong, but i don't think that you're presenting the argument in a way that is going to be well received.
hopefully both gccgo and any llvm backed implementations eventually mature to production grade. I think the thing that'll hold them back is that the toolchain is (by definition) completely different. 'go build .' is pretty nice.
the biggest value they bring is that unclear parts of the specification=be brought to light and clarified.