4 ms·

You mean like LLVM and GCC? Both compilers for C and C++ (and a lot more with various front ends). I can only imagine they're both maintained because people enj

You mean like LLVM and GCC? Both compilers for C and C++ (and a lot more with various front ends). I can only imagine they're both maintained because people enjoy working on them and find them interesting projects to develop. When I find something interesting to work on, I certainly don't care that someone else is doing something similar somewhere else.

lmm 7y ago
LLVM got where it is primarily because of GCC's licensing (and because GCC's design is deliberately compromised to support that licensing). It's unlikely that LLVM would have been maintained otherwise, and I would expect GCC to fall by the wayside in due course.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  I would expect GCC to fall by the wayside in due course This currently shows no sign of happening. What do you expect to change such that this happens? It's unlikely that LLVM would have been maintained otherwise Again, why? You're making this assertion as if it's fact, but there are a huge number of maintained pieces of software that do the same task as other maintained pieces of software. A great many pieces of software exist that didn't even get started until after similar software was already established. Do you have any logic behind your thinking beyond the fact that they're two pieces of software that do similar tasks?
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    I think your parent is exaggerating, but they do have a point. I can't point you to a concrete example off the top of my head, but there is quite a bit of anti-GPL sentiment in (parts of) the LLVM community. Apple I think is somewhat invested in spreading FUD about the GPL. I once spoke to some LLVM developers from Apple who said that they didn't believe they were allowed to look at the assembly code emitted by GCC, for copyright reasons. Which is strange since GCC explicitly does not claim copyright on its output.
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      I think your parent is exaggerating, but they do have a point. I can't point you to a concrete example off the top of my head, but there is quite a bit of anti-GPL sentiment in (parts of) the LLVM community. That's why the LLVM people won't switch over to GCC, sure. But what do the GCC people think of it? If they're content to keep working on GCC, what's going to change such that they want to stop? I could imagine that if the LLVM group gets orders of magnitude ahead (seems unlikely - thus far, they seem to be mostly keeping up with each other in terms of performance and so on - but it could happen), GCC might start to be seen as a niche piece of legacy software and start to head towards retirement. Any other obvious pathways for the end of GCC?
      - tom_mellior 7y ago
        Sorry, I should clarify: I think the OP had a point about licensing being a big factor in LLVM's uptake and especially its adoption by the likes of Apple and Google. I don't agree with the OP that this implies that GCC will be abandoned.
  - lmm 7y ago
    > This currently shows no sign of happening. What do you expect to change such that this happens? Just natural turnover. I expect GCC to struggle to attract new developers. When it was clearly best open-source optimizer there was a certain cachet to it, but now all the advantages are with LLVM. > Do you have any logic behind your thinking beyond the fact that they're two pieces of software that do similar tasks? Apple in particular are documented as having tested the limits of GCC's licensing before funding work on LLVM; I believe other corporate contributors have made comments along the same lines.

lmm 7y ago

LLVM got where it is primarily because of GCC's licensing (and because GCC's design is deliberately compromised to support that licensing). It's unlikely that LLVM would have been maintained otherwise, and I would expect GCC to fall by the wayside in due course.

EliRivers 7y ago
I would expect GCC to fall by the wayside in due course This currently shows no sign of happening. What do you expect to change such that this happens? It's unlikely that LLVM would have been maintained otherwise Again, why? You're making this assertion as if it's fact, but there are a huge number of maintained pieces of software that do the same task as other maintained pieces of software. A great many pieces of software exist that didn't even get started until after similar software was already established. Do you have any logic behind your thinking beyond the fact that they're two pieces of software that do similar tasks?
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  I think your parent is exaggerating, but they do have a point. I can't point you to a concrete example off the top of my head, but there is quite a bit of anti-GPL sentiment in (parts of) the LLVM community. Apple I think is somewhat invested in spreading FUD about the GPL. I once spoke to some LLVM developers from Apple who said that they didn't believe they were allowed to look at the assembly code emitted by GCC, for copyright reasons. Which is strange since GCC explicitly does not claim copyright on its output.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    I think your parent is exaggerating, but they do have a point. I can't point you to a concrete example off the top of my head, but there is quite a bit of anti-GPL sentiment in (parts of) the LLVM community. That's why the LLVM people won't switch over to GCC, sure. But what do the GCC people think of it? If they're content to keep working on GCC, what's going to change such that they want to stop? I could imagine that if the LLVM group gets orders of magnitude ahead (seems unlikely - thus far, they seem to be mostly keeping up with each other in terms of performance and so on - but it could happen), GCC might start to be seen as a niche piece of legacy software and start to head towards retirement. Any other obvious pathways for the end of GCC?
    - tom_mellior 7y ago
      Sorry, I should clarify: I think the OP had a point about licensing being a big factor in LLVM's uptake and especially its adoption by the likes of Apple and Google. I don't agree with the OP that this implies that GCC will be abandoned.
- lmm 7y ago
  > This currently shows no sign of happening. What do you expect to change such that this happens? Just natural turnover. I expect GCC to struggle to attract new developers. When it was clearly best open-source optimizer there was a certain cachet to it, but now all the advantages are with LLVM. > Do you have any logic behind your thinking beyond the fact that they're two pieces of software that do similar tasks? Apple in particular are documented as having tested the limits of GCC's licensing before funding work on LLVM; I believe other corporate contributors have made comments along the same lines.