[cfe-dev] FUD in clang vs GCC comparison ?

[Jonathan Sauer]

Hello,

> I probably look to you like annoying mistrustful person, and like that i  
> see that page like annoying shady word play.

While I personally think that you went a bit overboard with calling it "FUD" :-)
I certainly understand where you are coming from: Unless you know that the
paragraph in the features page refers to *embedding* clang as opposed to
merely using it as a stand-alone compiler, the current wording is unclear.

> And i think those phrases would better be rephrased in correct and  
> specifically narrow way.

I agree, which is why I just sent a patch to cfe-commit :-) changing the wording
to the following:

| We actively intend for clang (and LLVM as a whole) to be used for
| commercial projects, not only as a stand-alone compiler but also as a library
| embedded inside a proprietary application.  The BSD license is the simplest way
| to allow this.  We feel that the license encourages contributors to pick up the
| source and work with it, and believe that those individuals and organizations
| will contribute back their work if they do not want to have to maintain a fork
| forever (which is time consuming and expensive when merges are involved).
| Further, nobody makes money on compilers these days, but many people need them
| to get bigger goals accomplished: it makes sense for everyone to work
| together.

(BTW, I'm a bit uncertain about "nobody making money on compilers"; what about
the Edison Design Group?)

> PS: i also was a bit surprised by relating page discussion to cfe-dev  
> list, i hoped there is webmaster mailbox or comments for pages or  
> tracker/forum about site contents, but the only feedback link was cfe-dev,  
> sorry for those who are bored or disguted by the topic raised.

I can't speak for the project leaders, but my personal impression is that clang's
development is a community process publicly discussed on this here mailing list,
and that this also includes clang's website.


Jonathan