3 ms·

They should open source and upstream their patches to clang and llvm, and let the llvm community maintain it.

• nunobrito 3y ago
  That doesn't pay the bills. Cases of profitable open source projects are very scarce and difficult to achieve.
  • jenadine 3y ago
    I was referring to the changes they made to the compiler in their fork of clang, which makes the "catching up" with upstream clang challenging as they need to rebase. They can still sell their IDE and runtime libraries.
    • signaru 3y ago
      What they're adding are non standard C++ extensions only used by C++ Builder (properties, etc). There might be little benefit (and just maintenance cost) to upstream those to Clang. Clang also moves fast while it appears C++ Builder is still at C++17 [0]. [0] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/20 https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/20