[cfe-dev] Clang vs Other Open Source Compilers

[Douglas Gregor]

On Sep 15, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Dave Yost wrote:

> Yes, EDG is commercial, but licensees do get full source.
> 
> The Clang comparison page functions as a technical orientation to Clang, giving insight into differences in approach, interfacing, and completeness among major compilers. Another important function of the comparison is to help people considering switching from some other compiler (commercial or not) to Clang.
> 
> These functions would be better served if EDG were included in the comparison.
> 
> I suggest that the title of the comparison page should be changed to "Clang vs Other Compilers"
> 
> The section for each compiler can mention the licensing terms.

Frankly, I don't see any benefit to this. Commercial customers who have the means to license a commercial front end are going to do a far more in-depth analysis of the capabilities of the various front ends (both free and otherwise) than the "biased" analysis we put up on our web page. At best, this page provides a list of some of Clang's advantages/disadvantages that they can weigh against a commercial vendor's claims.

It's worth describing Clang's advantages and disadvantages relative to other open-source compilers because that's a completely different market, where we're mainly competing for mindshare among volunteers who want to do a little compiler hacking or want to build open-source tools on top of a front-end, and for whom "open source" is the first-order bit.

	- Doug

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20100915/1d76f2b3/attachment.html>