From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Nathan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 21:40:28 -0800 Message-ID: References: <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvn0senq.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <8761nusb90.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87vbkovhh7.fsf@engster.org> <87387rvobr.fsf@engster.org> <83ppat84hk.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106143933.0090bc83@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83r3v77ij6.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106154539.3d0752c4@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87wq4ype3z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20150108083211.5a85a077@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1132ec0c1f44fa050c319821" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1420794058 17068 80.91.229.3 (9 Jan 2015 09:00:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , Richard Stallman , David Engster , Emacs developers , Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii , "Perry E. Metzger" To: John Yates Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 09 10:00:51 2015 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 1Y9VOR-0004Th-L9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 09:58:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49548 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9VOM-00050z-3e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 03:58:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49447) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9UgH-00010n-0X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 03:12:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9Ug8-0004gC-G7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 03:12:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-bn1on0064.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.56.110.64]:30940 helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9Ufx-0004eW-Vi; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 03:12:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (209.85.220.173) by DM2PR04MB574.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.100.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 05:40:32 +0000 Original-Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id kv19so2596943vcb.4; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:40:28 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.221.49.197 with SMTP id vb5mr9311107vcb.40.1420782028654; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:40:28 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.53.1.236 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 21:40:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [209.85.220.173] X-ClientProxiedBy: DM2PR04CA048.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.154.166) To DM2PR04MB574.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.100.15) Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pnathan@alumni.uidaho.edu; X-DmarcAction: None X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005003);SRVR:DM2PR04MB574; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:DM2PR04MB574; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04519BA941 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(189002)(24454002)(377454003)(199003)(51704005)(55446002)(88552001)(92566001)(101416001)(62966003)(2950100001)(110136001)(75432002)(81156004)(105586002)(106356001)(61726006)(450100001)(68736005)(77156002)(512874002)(120916001)(93886004)(99396003)(59536001)(86362001)(89122001)(84326002)(87976001)(54356999)(76176999)(63696999)(50986999)(107046002)(46102003)(71186001)(97736003)(61266001)(20776003)(31966008)(93516999)(66066001)(69596002)(42186005)(19580405001)(21056001)(4396001)(122856001)(64706001)(40100003)(19580395003)(122386002)(55456009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR04MB574; H:mail-vc0-f173.google.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: alumni.uidaho.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR04MB574; X-OriginatorOrg: alumni.uidaho.edu X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2015 05:40:32.0852 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR04MB574 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Windows 7 or 8 X-Received-From: 157.56.110.64 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 03:57:47 -0500 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:181096 Archived-At: --001a1132ec0c1f44fa050c319821 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Much of this discussion is passe, I am afraid. It is quite clear that Clang/LLVM are leaps and bounds ahead in the tooling field; I see arguments about if the front door should be locked, when it's plain that the back door of the house has been opened and there is a thriving auction of the goods from the porch. If GCC is to compete on the tooling field, it will have to provide superior functionality that will not only meet Clang's bar, but exceed it significantly. I invite interested parties to play with XCode, Visual Studio, Eclipse, and IntelliJ to begin to understand exactly what the competition is. I would far rather see a libre software product at the top of the field, but it requires adaptation to the current world. Let the data be free, please. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:51 PM, John Yates wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > >> >> > The long term result of all of this may very well be to do exactly the >> > opposite of what you want -- to convince compiler researchers that >> > LLVM is the only serious platform for their work, >> >> Why do you say "may very well be"? According to your previous >> paragraph, they are already convinced, so there is no way to >> make that any worse. >> > > Richard, > > That almost comes across as you playing intentionally dumb. The paragraph > you quote explicitly uses the term 'researchers'. While some compiler and > language aware tools research happens in industry surely the largest amount > happens in academe. Academic researchers constitute a continually renewing > flow with those graduate students who move on into - typically to less > 'researchy' - industry roles being replaced by fresh, impressionable talent. > > Yes, we may be able to little to reshape attitudes of those who have left > academe. But are you therefore suggesting that the battle for hearts and > minds of potential future researchers is unalterably predetermined and so > utterly lost that we should not even try? > > /john > > --001a1132ec0c1f44fa050c319821 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Much of this discussion is passe, I am afraid. I= t is quite clear that Clang/LLVM are leaps and bounds ahead in the tooling = field; I see arguments about if the front door should be locked, when it= 9;s plain that the back door of the house has been opened and there is a th= riving auction of the goods from the porch.

If GCC is to compe= te on the tooling field, it will have to provide superior functionality tha= t will not only meet Clang's bar, but exceed it significantly. I invite= interested parties to play with XCode, Visual Studio, Eclipse, and Intelli= J to begin to understand exactly what the competition is.

I wo= uld far rather see a libre software product at the top of the field, but it= requires adaptation to the current world. Let the data be free, please.

On Thu= , Jan 8, 2015 at 6:51 PM, John Yates <john@yates-sheets.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8,= 2015 at 7:01 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

=C2=A0 > The long term result of all of this may very well be to do exac= tly the
=C2=A0 > opposite of what you want -- to convince compiler researchers t= hat
=C2=A0 > LLVM is the only serious platform for their work,

Why do you say "may very well be"?=C2=A0 According to your previo= us
paragraph, they are already convinced, so there is no way to
make that any worse.

Richard,

That almost comes across as you playing intentionall= y dumb.=C2=A0 The paragraph you quote explicitly uses the term 'researc= hers'.=C2=A0 While some compiler and language aware tools research happ= ens in industry surely the largest amount happens in academe.=C2=A0 Academi= c researchers constitute a continually renewing flow with those graduate st= udents who move on into - typically to less 'researchy' - industry = roles being replaced by fresh, impressionable talent.

<= div>Yes, we may be able to little to reshape attitudes of those who have le= ft academe.=C2=A0 But are you therefore suggesting that the battle for hear= ts and minds of potential future researchers is unalterably predetermined a= nd so utterly lost that we should not even try?

/john


--001a1132ec0c1f44fa050c319821--