[cfe-dev] Clang comparison page

[Joel Nelson]

I have no stake in Elsa, and I've never used it, but my thoughts:

Elsa is not a compiler, so I'm not sure that the following point is appropriate:

"Elsa does not support native code generation."

Also the following point seems to be a political (and practical,
granted) rather than a technical criticism:

"The Elsa community is extremely small and major development work
seems to have ceased in 2005, though it continues to be used by other
projects (e.g. Oink). Clang has a vibrant community including
developers that are paid to work on it full time."

A small community is only a problem for those who do not have the
resources to contribute to the project themselves. Since as you say
Clang has plenty of resources, then I think Elsa could be adopted as
the C++ parser if there were no technical issues, or if the cost of
resolving the technical issues was less than the cost of a
reimplementation.

I just thought these two points may be unfair given the scope of this
doc is stated as "We restrict the discussion to very specific
technical points to avoid controversy where possible." Maybe its this
statement which should be changed, instead.


On Dec 9, 2007 9:27 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I whipped up this page to help answer some commonly asked questions
> about how clang compares to other compilers:
> http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html
>
> Comparisons like this are often very sensitive so please let me know
> if I am saying anything unfair/non-objective, or am forgetting anything.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>