From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: enabling company-capf support in cfengine.el Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 04:32:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87k3dv1g69.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <87fvqtg02v.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87zjnvg2t2.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87txe364q0.fsf@yandex.ru> <87r497fu0h.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87haa1litl.fsf@yandex.ru> <87y53czx7e.fsf@yandex.ru> <87bo08bivm.fsf_-_@flea.lifelogs.com> <87sitkzahs.fsf@yandex.ru> <52D7DAAB.2070709@yandex.ru> <52D81960.2080408@yandex.ru> <52DA8C17.4080707@yandex.ru> <52DC00E5.3020803@yandex.ru> <52DC6A26.3020003@yandex.ru> <87k3dv9z85.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390188783 28535 80.91.229.3 (20 Jan 2014 03:33:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 03:33:03 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 20 04:33:11 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 1W55bq-0004vL-T1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 04:33:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48653 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W55bq-0004pD-FA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:33:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52924) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W55bj-0004p4-7h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:33:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W55be-0001JN-Gy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:33:03 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:41335) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W55be-0001JI-6c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:32:58 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W55bc-0004oW-Nh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 04:32:56 +0100 Original-Received: from 121.red-81-44-203.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([81.44.203.121]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 04:32:56 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 121.red-81-44-203.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 04:32:56 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 20 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 121.red-81-44-203.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:i4bovWK2nz7Kl5yMxdeXEv26NNI= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:168766 Archived-At: John Yates writes: > That cat already seems to be out of the bag: http://dragonegg.llvm.org/ dragonegg is GPLed. > RMS may have an inflated sense of the extent to which the greater compiler > community (those developing and those using compilers) value gcc over clang > / llvm. For many reason the latter is winning the day. Speed, memory > footprint, modularity, ease of entry, size of development community all > favor clang / llvm. [snip] This is very true. The reason is easy to understand: why should I, as a software developer, should use GCC instead of Clang when *both are Free Software* and Clang's development is focused on creating the best tool for the user while GCC is hindered by someone else's views about how to protect me from hypothetical perils? Why should I use the crippled tool?