From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:30:44 +0100 Message-ID: <87d2i1lhpn.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> <87d2i9ee8t.fsf@engster.org> <874n3ke1qn.fsf@engster.org> <87sir336qn.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20140301215057.GA19461@thyrsus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393972267 32763 80.91.229.3 (4 Mar 2014 22:31:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , Richard Stallman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: esr@thyrsus.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 04 23:31:16 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WKxrn-0001SK-8I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:31:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48918 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKxrm-0004BA-RV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:31:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55120) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKxrf-00049n-2H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:31:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKxrZ-0001vr-3P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:31:07 -0500 Original-Received: from ka.mail.enyo.de ([87.106.162.201]:52631) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKxrL-0001pN-Qd; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:30:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [172.17.135.4] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by ka.mail.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1WKxrI-0006YJ-Ed; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:30:44 +0100 Original-Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WKxrI-0003S1-A3; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:30:44 +0100 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 87.106.162.201 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:170148 Archived-At: * Eric S. Raymond: > LLVM got off the ground because GCC, by policy, refused to provide > interfaces that some toolmakers wanted. Consequently, those hackers > exercised their freedom by going around GCC rather than through it. There might be some truth to that, but that the main LLVM contributor is deeply unhappy about the GPL, version 3, turned out a more important factor IMHO. I'm not following LLVM development closely. Are there really that many contributions from people who use Clang for building IDEs? (Rafael's work probably doesn't depend that much on modularity.) I just don't believe in claims along the lines of "if you change X, you'll attract new contributors, producing useful features for your users". That almost never happens, whether it's a good policy from a software freedom point of view or not. And it certainly wasn't downright refusal on the GCC part, it's just that it was (and still is) difficult to get an annotated AST approximating the source code out of the C++ front end. Anyway, it is difficult to pitch GCC against LLVM in terms of software freedom because it used to be common practice among GCC developers to sell themselves into slavery and work on what are, for all intents and purposes, proprietary forks, and the practice probably continues today to a lesser extent.