Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

In the days since Eric S. Raymond had some choice words about GCC vs. Clang, the bickering and fighting over GCC vs. Clang compilers has continued. Richard M. Stallman has come out this morning on the Free Software Foundation's mailing list with his views to reiterate...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU4MjA

[e8hffff]

If the core of LLVM remains open and free, is that enough?

[TemplarGR]

I am with Stallman on this one. Also gcc is still better than clang. That may change, but for now clang has no advantage other than it is the new and cool stuff for kiddies. This may be good for journalists and fanbois but GCC is still the first choice.

[Sonadow]

And Stallman's agenda now becomes clear.

"You must give your stuff to us with no restrictions because we want them and we need them to help us, but you're not getting your hands on OUR stuff because we don't want to help others ."

against the BSD's

"Take our stuff and feel free to use it anyway you want if it helps, and give back as much as you want when you feel like it"

[YaPeL]

i love how bias against RMS Michale is, R;S never spoke against the technical advantages of LLVM, but agains the consequences of using a license that would allow non free code, guess ABE is on again.

[shaurz]

LLVM came from academia (like the BSDs) and not created for the benefit of some political ideology.

[stikonas]

I agree with Stallman too. But this might be a reminder to improve GCC further because now there is a competition.

[leech]

I tend to always agree with Stallman, he's an incredibly bright individual. And really, LLVM/Clang isn't that much better if at all than GCC right now, but the competition between the two will end up giving both a boost in features and performance. That's just the way the world works.

But I will say this much, they haven't ported LLVM/Clang to Classic Amigas, so I'll stick with using GCC, thank you very much!

[erendorn]

So many misconceptions.. A non free program using permissive code would not necessarily have been open source had the code been copylefted, just as piracy does not equate to lost sales...

If he prefers "no code" than "proprietary code", then I don't want his "freedom".

[artivision]

Stallman is wrong to this one. He has a limited vision for the word freedom. A closed program that runs on all platforms is more free than an open one that runs only on one (i speak for hardware and software). In our case GCC did take the Intel road for statically linking compilation as MS compilers did. So they benefit mostly Intel and x86 monopoly and Instruction_set based computing, and they stall technology. We have the same computing for 40 years. I prefer a BSD LLVM because i am thinking than if consoles like PS4 use it, and some graphic engines use it as well, there is a huge change to get rid of x86 processors, in favor of better processors or free processors and easy emulation. I don't understand something: What is the importance to have something free (copy left), that doesn't work or can't be used with a new vision of what is beneficial for as in our time.