3 ms·
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 numerou
by 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 agoMaybe 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 agoI 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?