4 ms·
The ability to make it proprietary is in fact the reason why Apple didn't adopt gcc and became the main supporter of clang/llvm instead. So the issue is already
by est31 7y ago
The ability to make it proprietary is in fact the reason why Apple didn't adopt gcc and became the main supporter of clang/llvm instead. So the issue is already here. Fortunately Apple's ambitions only center around keeping full control of the Apple walled garden (the apple main building is a wonderful symbol of it). And should a strong proprietary competitor outside of Apple's ecosystem emerge, people can always fork clang and put it under GPLv3 or similar.
- mitchty 7y agoIf that really were the case, why did Chris Lattner try to give clang/llvm over to the FSF and merge it into gcc? Which failed only apparently due to Stallman not noticing the emails. After which Apple started pushing clang/llvm as in a way, they were shunned by gcc. The rest of your comment is... way too political towards gpl.
- jcranmer 7y agoChris Lattner suggested it back when gcc was first working on LTO, and clang didn't exist. 2004 or 2005-ish, IIRC. Back then, he was still working at UIUC. Apple pushed clang as a competitor to gcc much later, closer to 2010-ish.
- mitchty 7y agoI'm curious then how the email from Chris in 2005 comes from his apple.com email address? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html Doesn't seem to add up with your proposed timeline. Care to explain?