Defending GCC considered futile
lists.gnu.org
Defending GCC considered futile
1–10 of 209 posts
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
#2 Obsolescence happens; this is nobody's fault. It will happen to
clang/LLVM someday, too, but today is not that day.
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
#3ESR seems a bit over the line with this mail, but what never ceases to amaze me is how RMS is disconnected with the present technology:
>From its name, I guess that LLDB is a noncopylefted debugger and that some might intend it to replace GDB. But I don't know if that is so.
This is just one of many, in the recent arguments he has stated several times that he doesn't understand how automated code refactoring works, he has not experience with IDEs, and things of the like.
Beside the ideological point, he does not seem a person capable of steering important projects, at least when it comes to compiler technology. He just doesn't know enough anymore.
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
#4Thankfully, Emacs maintainer Stefan Monnier is being sensible about this:
> As mentioned earlier, in any case I will happily accept and install LLDB support into gud.el. So as long as I'm Emacs maintainer, your opinion on whether this might ruin the FSF's goals are not relevant.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
#5This is pretty much the perfect moment for two egos like RMS and ESR to clash. RMS is already getting a lot of flak for expressing his fear of GCC being displaced in such a manner, whereas ESR is well known for his disliking RMS, to put it mildly.
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
#6> Already my own experiments suggest that LLVM is a superior compiler, by every metric I know of
Except that it isn't copyleft, which is one of the most important metrics to Stallman, FSF et al, and is why they're unlikely to stop defending it.
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
#7Making your own tool suck/break/be-difficult when license-compatible patches are submitted to improve the program seems counter productive for everyone.
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
#8This is pretty much the perfect moment for two egos like RMS and ESR to clash. RMS is already getting a lot of flak for expressing his fear of GCC being displaced in such a manner, whereas ESR is well known for his disliking RMS, to put it mildly.
It is not clear that RMS is driven by ego. He's motivated by a very clear goal to keep free software free. Free as in freedom free. As for ESR, well, yup, that's an ego that is sufficient in size to have a gravitational pull. http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000082800620OPCYKN
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
#9Nice to see some classic maillist arguing instead of those hipster medium.com articles or posts full of memes/gif/clipart to make a point
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
#10Thankfully, Emacs maintainer Stefan Monnier is being sensible about this: > As mentioned earlier, in any case I will happily accept and install LLDB support into gud.el. So as long as I'm Emacs maintainer, your opinion on whether this might ruin the FSF's goals are not relevant. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...
Yeah. What's especially painful is RMS is basically saying "Hey folks, I want to block this until I can research the issue." And then his research is "I don't know anuything about this, can anybody tell me what LLDB is?"
My guess is (based on his past statements) that he doesn't browse the web, or browses it through emacs sending mail to him (really!) and doesn't use search so he can't really find out what LLDB is.
Do you really want to be beholden to a person who blocks software integration (into a unified debugger interface) and then can't even do reearch to justify that?