4 ms·

They wanted to, but RMS wasn't interested at that time: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00594.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/

by ch_123 5y ago

They wanted to, but RMS wasn't interested at that time: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00594.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00... I have also been told by more than one person that does professional compiler development that GCC's codebase is very difficult to work with. At least some commentary I've read suggests that this was a deliberate choice on the part of the GNU project.

kps 5y ago
> I have also been told by more than one person that does professional compiler development that GCC's codebase is very difficult to work with. Add another. (Now-former professional compiler developer.) > At least some commentary I've read suggests that this was a deliberate choice on the part of the GNU project. This is the ‘RMS loophole’ in the GPL. In theory you can do what you want with the source; in practice you need help from the insiders.
marcos100 5y ago
Sure, I'm not denying any problems with the GCC codebase and/or how RMS handles GNU software. Just pointing that reinventing the wheel is not necessarily a bad thing or a waste of time.