> programming involves many of the classic trade-offs in programming: dynamic
> features add flexibility, static features add speed and type checking."
> My Note: please keep in mind we are talking about language used for writing
> clang, a compiler tool.
> So, Objective-C has disadvantage with regard to size od generated code,
> performance, and optimization as compared to C++.
> But both share OO (object-oriented) paradigm, which many pros consider
> synthetic, or pulled out of thin air if you prefer, with negative effects on
> devs mental health, design, and resulting code quality.
> I hope I got all facts right -:)
most probably, but what does it mean if clang have multiple layers,
frontend, LLVM backend, etc. etc. for normal user who just needs C
It doesn't matter how it do this but what are the results.
> It seems to me that switching to clang was a correct strategic decision for
> reasons linked to GPLv3 license as described in my prior post and by other
> thread posters.
You didn't wrote anything new here.
> But there seems to be some price paid related to "written in C++" facts
> described by me in both posts, which may make some people come to a conclusion
> that the decision was based more on a political factor (Apple) than on
> technical merits.
It doesn't really care how clang is written but how it works. And it was
political decision because compiler itself, on GPLv3 licence, does not
block anyhow distributing it's output - binaries.
C++ libraries can be limiting, but... wasn't replaced.
If it would be truly about removing GPLv3 code that hurts, replacing
libstdc++ would be first thing to do.
For now we have removed GPL code that doesn't hurt