O... oh... OOOOHHH.... FSCK.... YES!
Phoronix: LLVM 2.8 Released With Feature-Complete Clang C++
Chris Lattner has just announced the release of version 2.8 of LLVM, the Low-Level Virtual Machine. LLVM 2.8 is only being released about six months after the release of LLVM 2.7, but it boasts many notable changes, including the Clang compiler offering feature-complete C++ support against the ISO C++ 1998 and 2003 standards...
O... oh... OOOOHHH.... FSCK.... YES!
It's perhaps relevant to note that FreeBSD 9-CURRENT has been possible to build with clang/llvm for a little while now. I'm running it on a machine right now, and it seems fine. (This is buildworld, so the entire base system, not just the kernel.)
Not that there's much C++ in that, but it does suggest that clang is maturing.
I'm a beginner C++ programmer...
I'm not quite familiar with the development infrastructure of the open source world.
Correct me if I'm wrong; Does this LLVM with Clang C++ replace GCC?
It's basically a free-for-all evolution process that is field tested and known to work better than the proprietary software Cathedral style software development method.
There's no centralized development managemant structure in the FLOSS ecosystem; people develop what they want and Linux distributions pick what they think is best. Then the best distro gets the most users, so the most users will get the best software.Correct me if I'm wrong; Does this LLVM with Clang C++ replace GCC?
GCC has G++ for C++ but is not completely standards compliant. Not in terms of let's go 'embrace, extent and extinguish' ala Microsoft style, but as in "This is the best we can come up with".
GCC; the GNU Compiler Collection is older and thus more optimized.
The succesful projects mostly develop like this:
1. Make it work
2. Make it work realy great
3. Optmization stage
You can basically drop it in instead of gcc and it will usually work. It's a bit pickier on some corner cases, and there are some things gcc supports that clang doesn't - both gcc-specific things and standard ones.
However, it is not meant to replace gcc as the "standard" OSS compiler. It might become more popular than gcc at some future point, but "kill gcc" is not on their TODO list.
Yes, I am just randomly ranting at a lack of software installation standards. Until DEBs work with RPM systems, or RPMs work on DEB systems, or quite simply until ONE package format is made universal, I will continue to complain.
Also, it's a good way to spread knowledge of Zero Install since it's the only GOOD solution so far it seems.
Seriously, Michael, when are you going to cover that major problem on Linux and what progress, if any, is being made towards a unified standard? This issue should be PARAMOUNT to anyone interested in getting games onto Linux as a platform. For any and all developers, and users, having one solution for installing and registering software on user's systems across all distros is critical for widespread Linux adoption. No one wants to compile their software against 10 different distros, and users shouldn't want that either. It's a form of DRM in a sense, and is almost like Steam, because if you decided to change distros and you only had an RPM or DEB for a game you bought, you'd be screwed with a pineapple. Seriously, it's ridiculous.
Of course you could brew your own soup, no problem (Arch, Gentoo and a 'real' distro like LFS lolz) But standards dictate, so if you want all game developpers to port to a layer and want that layer to keep binary compatibility and keep being developped to stay up-to-date with new libs then they should check out LSB.
So you can complain to game developpers instead of the ecosystem.
First off, you are talking about closed source, commercial software, for which there are lots of developers even for linux, and they have absolutely no problem with it. NO PROBLEM. They can make a manual installer, statically link whatever they need, and install if all under /opt/programname/, just like they would under Windows.
It's not an issue, it's not even harder. Or they can spend one developer 1 day to fix a deb, rpm, whatever the fuck you want.
You speak of compiling their software against 10 different distros, for which you prove you have absolutely no idea what this means.
It's not a DRM in the slightest.
You can easily make a DEB and RPM that will work with any system, completely without dependencies. Just a quick and easy install-system.
Or you can just not use it, doesn't matter. Make a manual installer, make something like steam. You have complete freedom and there is no technical issues that's stopping you in any way.