From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 20 21:14:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7D21065676 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:14:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1324E8FC15 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 12528 invoked by uid 0); 20 Jun 2012 21:14:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 20 Jun 2012 21:14:17 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apotheon.com; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; bh=QA2TPyg94ddits0laiZGvoLz4ieJsbbUBBVvdz0V2gY=; b=Icsl1Yz7Q5aip2tJfgLoTv0nq6y2kQSExh6wxJlyRT3pvAOI4yiOxqG7WzJZGUFzgmbwPlCiiqc1ak5Su2IVZwDbghgNNDyEZ9dfTI403jWL13Zgxu1tKBUnPDHk9hDP; Received: from [24.8.180.234] (port=60611 helo=localhost) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1ShSED-0005r0-9U for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:14:17 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:14:17 -0600 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20120620211417.GC26703@hemlock.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <854D02B1-CA89-4F5E-8773-DB05F2868D74@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4FE1FD18.7010101@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4FE1FD18.7010101@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.com} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with perrin@apotheon.com} Subject: Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:14:18 -0000 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:40:56PM +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote: > 20.06.2012 18:47, Mark Felder пишет: > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:14 -0500, Wojciech Puchar > > wrote: > >> [attribution lost by Wojciech Puchar and I'm too lazy to check] > >>> > >>> Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the > >>> CLANG project? > >> > >> because we already have great compiler - GCC. In spite of using GPL > >> licence. > > > > GCC performs well, but it is a very messy undocumented codebase which > > makes maintaining it a nightmare. Just ask Google -- you'll find many > > others saying the same thing. It would take MORE work to get FreeBSD > > devs up to speed on the GCC codebase to add the features we want than > > it is to cooperate with the CLANG community and help them make their > > compiler better than GCC in every test case. > > It is the classic developer/user argument. It is also stupid. The user > side simply doesn't have the same needs, it can't understand how > freaking hard it is sometimes to debug a large and complex program in a > badly documented environment or worse with undocumented features. If it > works faster ergo it is better - that is the only criteria to really > have a meaning to a user. It's bikeshed painting. Someone who doesn't understand the many factors that apply, and doesn't even *want* to know, picks one thing he thinks he understands and argues about it in an attempt to make the entire project change course. Well, dammit, I *like* blue, and he can take his bucket of red paint home with him to paint his *own* bikeshed. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]