2 ms·
They can do this because they have a choice. Apple cleaned itself of the GPL once it could, after a long stint where it couldn't. Had GCC been the library backe
by pie_flavor 1y ago
They can do this because they have a choice. Apple cleaned itself of the GPL once it could, after a long stint where it couldn't. Had GCC been the library backend standard instead of LLVM, the world would have a lot more GPL in its compilers.
- eqvinox 1y agoAnd yet, LLVM is thriving, and not desolately crying for proprietary commercial improvements to be fed back by their creators. It's an odd balance, sometimes it works out, this seems to be such a case.
- motorest 1y ago> They can do this because they have a choice. Apple cleaned itself of the GPL once it could, after a long stint where it couldn't. Had GCC been the library backend standard instead of LLVM, the world would have a lot more GPL in its compilers. I don't think this is a valid assumption. If the root cause was a refusal to adopt GPL software, I think it's rather obvious that in a universe where LLVM doesn't exist, companies such as Apple will still diverte their resources to non-LLVM software. Apple is also not resource-constrained or a stranger to develop compilers and their programming languages. Does anyone believe that GCC is the only conceivable way of developing a compiler? There's a lot of specious reasoning involved in this idea that LLVM is the sole reason some companies don't adopt GCC. The truth of the matter is that licenses do matter, and if a license is compatible with their goals then companies can and will contribute (LLVM) whereas if it isn't (GCC) companies will avoid even looking at it.