5 ms·

> If she wants to fork GCC she should go right ahead She doesn't want to fork gcc. She's saying that if people wanted to use gcc in this way so badly, they wou

by Gracana 12y ago

> If she wants to fork GCC she should go right ahead She doesn't want to fork gcc. She's saying that if people wanted to use gcc in this way so badly, they would fork. But nobody is interested in doing that, because it's easier to work with clang rather than try to fight with gcc. And the argument is that gcc is worse off for having driven those users away.

jacquesm 12y ago
> She doesn't want to fork gcc. Yes, I got that. I'm saying that she should if she feels the issue is that important (assuming she has the skills to pull off the fork). > She's saying that if people wanted to use gcc in this way so badly, they would fork. Conclusion: they don't. > But nobody is interested in doing that, because it's easier to work with clang rather than try to fight with gcc. That's most likely not a majority of the users but if clang serves their need that does not diminish GCC in any way other than that a couple of users moved to a different product. Big deal. GCC does not charge any price of admission, you are free to use it and you're free not to. If you're not driving the car you don't get to shout from the sidelines on what direction to take. > And the argument is that gcc is worse off for having driven those users away. GCC (and by extension Stallmann) are not driving anybody away. If you feel 'driven away' because someone does not act as you think they should then you have an entitlement problem.
- CJefferson 12y ago
  I'm not sure you know the whole history of this piece. This is ecologically a case of Stallmann driving people away. Over the last 10 years I have seen numerous patch sets to make GCC dump out usegiul ASTs, and they have been rejected by stallman for purely political reasons. Stallman is perfectly within his rights to tell people he doesn't want this (in my opinion) very useful functionality in the FSF GCC, and to purposefully make it hard for people to maintain forks where they do as this functionality (which he has admitted to on multiple occasions), but he is certainly driving users and developers away.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Maybe I'm dense but I don't get the 'driving away' bit. Not doing something is the right of any creator. Stallman is the guy that first of all wrote the software and made it possible to fork. So if the functionality is really that much in demand get it over with and fork it so you can correct all these perceived slights and the world will be a better place for it. But don't try to pressure the man into doing something he clearly does not want, whatever his reasons, that's akin to complaining the gift you got wasn't quite what you wanted.
    - alextgordon 12y ago
      I don't think anybody does care, they just like to argue with Stallman. Clang's parse trees are cleaner and more useful than GCC's ASTs. Even if this were implemented in GCC it would be limited and inferior, so why bother?

by Gracana 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

> She doesn't want to fork gcc. Yes, I got that. I'm saying that she should if she feels the issue is that important (assuming she has the skills to pull off the fork). > She's saying that if people wanted to use gcc in this way so badly, they would fork. Conclusion: they don't. > But nobody is interested in doing that, because it's easier to work with clang rather than try to fight with gcc. That's most likely not a majority of the users but if clang serves their need that does not diminish GCC in any way other than that a couple of users moved to a different product. Big deal. GCC does not charge any price of admission, you are free to use it and you're free not to. If you're not driving the car you don't get to shout from the sidelines on what direction to take. > And the argument is that gcc is worse off for having driven those users away. GCC (and by extension Stallmann) are not driving anybody away. If you feel 'driven away' because someone does not act as you think they should then you have an entitlement problem.

CJefferson 12y ago
I'm not sure you know the whole history of this piece. This is ecologically a case of Stallmann driving people away. Over the last 10 years I have seen numerous patch sets to make GCC dump out usegiul ASTs, and they have been rejected by stallman for purely political reasons. Stallman is perfectly within his rights to tell people he doesn't want this (in my opinion) very useful functionality in the FSF GCC, and to purposefully make it hard for people to maintain forks where they do as this functionality (which he has admitted to on multiple occasions), but he is certainly driving users and developers away.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Maybe I'm dense but I don't get the 'driving away' bit. Not doing something is the right of any creator. Stallman is the guy that first of all wrote the software and made it possible to fork. So if the functionality is really that much in demand get it over with and fork it so you can correct all these perceived slights and the world will be a better place for it. But don't try to pressure the man into doing something he clearly does not want, whatever his reasons, that's akin to complaining the gift you got wasn't quite what you wanted.
  - alextgordon 12y ago
    I don't think anybody does care, they just like to argue with Stallman. Clang's parse trees are cleaner and more useful than GCC's ASTs. Even if this were implemented in GCC it would be limited and inferior, so why bother?