Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:18:13 -0500 From: "Thomas M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <38D446F5.AB12B522@mail.ptd.net> References: <4.2.2.20000317173928.040fec50@localhost> <4.2.2.20000317234800.03e7c380@localhost> <4.2.2.20000318180821.03e7d550@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > > At 05:01 PM 3/18/2000 , Thomas M. Sommers wrote: > > >How would the existence of a second free C compiler make it easier for > >Borland to sell their compiler? > > The existence of a BSD-licensed compiler would allow companies to > add value without starting from scratch. Which companies? Borland doesn't have to start from scratch. Nor do Unix vendors that already have their own compilers. And what value could be added? Either the compiler meets the standard or it doesn't. Adding "features" to the language would just break portability. If you wanted to improve the interals of the compiler, you'd probably be better off writing your own anyway. On the other hand, an IDE, where value can be added, can be written to work with any compiler, so a company would not need their own. > >And anyway, Borland has a history of > >opening up (giving away) "obsolete" products (in the Windows world, > >command line tools are for all practical purposes obsolete). There is, > >for instance, a port of TurboVision in the ports collection. > > Their C compiler isn't obsolete. Not the compiler per se, but a command-line compiler without an IDE. Borland still sells C++Builder, and have just released a new version. I doubt they could sell the compiler without the IDE these days. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38D446F5.AB12B522>