Then you might as well talk about "C/Rust". Both go to LLVM. But nobody says it, because it would be BS in exactly the same way "C/C++" is.
What matters about a language as a technology, as in the context of this Mark guy's blurb, is how it works in use. There, C and C++ share hardly anything in common: what you do writing good code in one is nothing at all like what you do with the other.
You might get a C program compiled with a C++ compiler, but it would be utterly crappy code, considered as C++.
So, "C/C++" is an inherently dishonest construction. Anybody using it for a context outside of, say, ELF formats or peephole optimization is promoting a lie.
Lying says more about the speaker than about the supposed topic.
LLVM is not a compiler frontend. It’s the middle- and back-ends; Clang is the frontend.
Neither Rust nor C is inextricably linked to LLVM either, as I’m sure you’re aware. And the former doesn’t align with the abstract machine assumed by the latter in important regards, like forward progress.
The rest of this is just a screed. I’m not here to defend his honor, and you shouldn’t waste your time posting about it on random sites on the Internet.
What matters about a language as a technology, as in the context of this Mark guy's blurb, is how it works in use. There, C and C++ share hardly anything in common: what you do writing good code in one is nothing at all like what you do with the other.
You might get a C program compiled with a C++ compiler, but it would be utterly crappy code, considered as C++.
So, "C/C++" is an inherently dishonest construction. Anybody using it for a context outside of, say, ELF formats or peephole optimization is promoting a lie.
Lying says more about the speaker than about the supposed topic.