6 ms·
Interesting. I've heard that complaint before and I'm not sure how to address it since I have only used reStructuredText in what are likely smaller projects. I
by m_nyongesa 4y ago
Interesting. I've heard that complaint before and I'm not sure how to address it since I have only used reStructuredText in what are likely smaller projects.
I think it's strange for a language to absolutely rely on the architecture of one compiler. Ideally it should have at least two that are both under FLO (free/libre/open) licenses.
Regarding LLVM specifically, see here: https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoIMO chasing multiple compilers is a bad idea for almost any young language. It more than doubles the amount of time it takes to improve anything and while there are benefits, they are fairly minor. You essentially are asking a language to not fix anything in the compiler for a year for the advantage of making it harder to fix things in the future.
- m_nyongesa 4y agoSorry I wasn't clear enough before. I should have said "I wish Julia worked on a compiler licensed under the GPL." The only major one I know of is GCC. This is not just a "minor" benefit. To quote from the post I linked to: "The nonfree compilers that are now based on LLVM prove that I was right -- that the danger was real. If I had "opened" up GCC code for use in nonfree combinations, that would not have prevented a defeat; rather, it would have caused that defeat to occur very soon. ...The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us."