Our C++ support is far enough along now that we shouldn't be recommending the use...

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@84149 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

diff --git a/www/comparison.html b/www/comparison.html
index bba2a65d36e608c37e5626856c8ccb93de4eee0e..f0d00bb497bee92e5f8f6dbadc0a8c9bacfd6d0c 100644 (file)
--- a/www/comparison.html
+++ b/www/comparison.html
@@ -122,11 +122,6 @@
     <p>Pro's of Elsa vs clang:</p>
     
     <ul>
-    <li>Elsa's support for C++ is far beyond what clang provides.  If you need
-        C++ support in the next year, Elsa is a great way to get it.  That said,
-        Elsa is missing important support for templates and other pieces: for 
-        example, it is not capable of compiling the GCC STL headers from any
-        version newer than GCC 3.4.</li>
     <li>Elsa's parser and AST is designed to be easily extensible by adding
         grammar rules.  Clang has a very simple and easily hackable parser,
         but requires you to write C++ code to do it.</li>