> Your reply certainly implied you thought GCC was fine along the same axises your parent said clang was better. No. I simply corrected a false statement regar

> Your reply certainly implied you thought GCC was fine along the same axises your parent said clang was better. No. I simply corrected a false statement regarding gcc. I did not compare it to clang at all. I have no illusions how gcc does compare to clang w.r.t. to code quality, modularity, etc. As I've said: it would be weird if it were otherwise. It's really not hard to beat gcc in that area. > You are talking to a guy who helped make some of this progress Thank you (no irony intended). > Actually, it interests me immensely. It may interest you, but as you say yourself: > But in the end, I choose stuff based on technical merits first, freedom second >You are of course, welcome to do as you please. Will do, thanks.