I would rather listen to what RMS has to say about the subject.
GCC has already lost on technical merits and mind share where it counts: investment.
Are politics news? Even if Eric S. Raymond writes it doesn't make always a problem of Clang or GCC. Given this still should be read in context.
Ian Taylor, an important GCC developer writes:
And even Eric responded as:I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang. But I'm not
sure I grasp your proposed solution. GCC does support plugins, and
has supported them for a few releases now.
GCC plugins have what turns out to be a significant defect: the plugin
interface simply exposes GCC internals, and as such is not stable
across releases. I pushed for plugins in GCC, and I thought this
unstable interface would be OK, but I was wrong. For general plugins
to be useful, we need a more stable interface.
But that is a technical issue, not a licensing issue. You are talking
about licensing issues. Do you think the licensing requirements on
plugins are too onerous?
Because of the non-standard interface, the most effective way for
people to write plugins for GCC today is to use something like MELT
(http://gcc-melt.org) or the GCC Python plugin
(https://fedorahosted.org/gcc-python-plugin/). These provide a
somewhat more standard interface across releases.
Ideally we would develop a standard interface for C as well. There
have been some efforts along those lines but as far as I know none of
them have been committed to the tree.
(emphasis mine)Then I don't understand why David Kastrup's question was even controversial.
If I have failed to understand the background facts, I apologize and welcome
I hope you (and others) understand that I welcome chances to help the FSF's
projects when I believe doing so serves the hacker community as a whole. The
fact that I am currently working full-time on cleaning up the Emacs repoaitory
for full git conversion is only one instance of this.
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
Michael, in light of the information that's been presented in this thread, I'm very disappointed in the sensationalist spin-like nature of the main article.
Eric S. Raymond should go to proprietary vendors and tell them to free their code under GPL. I don't understand why he attacks FSF which is the best example of giving users freedom. Sounds like a troll to me.