Re: life ?
  By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Sun Mar 01 2020 04:43 pm

 > Hallo Rob!
 >
 >  RS> Java?
 >
 > Yes.  I believe java was the language that originally prompted this
 > discussion ...

You're saying Java doesn't have a foreseeable future?

 > or was it clang vs gcc?  I forget now.

Um... clang and gcc aren't programming languages.

 >  RS> don't always "eat their own dog food"
 >
 > That can happen.  Speaking for myself I don't knowingly consume any java
 > products to honour the fallen.  As of this writing everything here requires
 > gcc including llvm (clang) and the only reason for llvm has to do with xorg
 > and absolutely zero to do with the console thank goodness.  However I still
 > plan to try recompiling glibc with clang when llvm-10 becomes official which
 > should be very soon.  I am just a tad too curious about the claim of a clang
 > based OS, which from the angle looks to be highly suspicious thus far.  I
 > have yet to see any real evidence.  How about you?

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. You seem to be saying that that 
llvm (clang) requires gcc? I don't know how to digest that bit of info. 

                                            digital man

This Is Spinal Tap quote #17:
David St. Hubbins: It's such a fine line between stupid, and uh... and clever.
Norco, CA WX: 47.1øF, 89.0% humidity, 0 mph WSW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux