Android NDK r16: Developers Should Start Using LLVM's libc++ With GCC On The Way Out

[sdack]

There's only a single reason and it has nothing to do with your list. Companies (even supposedly open-source friendly like Google) are afraid of GPL as it doesn't allow them to keep code secret. This was the reason Sony chose FreeBSD and Clang for PS4 and is the reason many companies prefer LLVM as the foundation for their custom products.

No. That's nonsense. I know from other developers about their grief with gcc, which is why I wrote here. gcc exists for 30 years now and if it was a problem with the license of the GNU compiler then it would never have gotten as old as it is now. Rather would the llvm project have started much earlier. The compiler's license simply doesn't transfer onto the code you write and the executables you produce. Most of the license complaints are FUD and the few remaining complaints are sadly only attempts to undermine the freedom while also trying to hitch a free ride. The big companies have no problems funding their own compiler development if they wanted to. They just don't want to, but enjoy the free ride they get with other licenses. Don't listen to the big companies when they complain about open source licenses. They are supposed to and expected to complain.

And some people even go as far as to believe true freedom should include the right to no freedom, too, or else it wouldn't be truly free. It's however nonsense and it only leads to the loss of freedom. You cannot have freedom without protection, just like you cannot have peace without a military.

I know that for you these may seem like real problems, but I know they are not. Without gcc, and this includes its license, would we not have Linux today. So this just cannot suddenly be a problem. *lol*

[DrYak]

What is more free is surely something people can debate intensely for a long time, but I always feel GPL is less free than MIT.

It depends entirely on your perspective.

You're likely a developer, and for your point of view GPL puts restriction on you (you must always make the modification available together with any modified binary that you distribute). You want to make an app but the requirement to make the LGPLed libs you use available might scare you.

I'm more an end-user / independent dev / power user. For me GPLv3 brings more freedom : no matter what some company tries to pull as a loophole, GPLv3 tries to guarantee me that I'll get what I (or someone else on the internet) need to be able to tinker a device I own.
I don't want to end up with a smartphone that I can't poke its android about, because the manufacturer completely modified system libraries, I a way that I can't see (because they were 3-clause BSD licensed).

And some people even go as far as to believe true freedom should include the right to no freedom, too, or else it wouldn't be truly free. It's however nonsense and it only leads to the loss of freedom. You cannot have freedom without protection, just like you cannot have peace without a military.

My opinion exactly.

My freedom as an end-users relies on the capability of license to prevent a developers from taking my freedom away at their leisure.

My freedom (to tinker) is in direct conflict with a developper's freedom (to take access away).

That's why I'm a bit weary of LLVM and direction this GCC vs. LLVM competition is taking.
Not because of the quality of LLVM it self, but for the potential of abusing my freedom that LLVM's license opens.

[Ansla]

gnustl is in really poor state eg. problems with locale or missing trivial C++11 features like 'std::to_string'

I don't know about the locale issues, I'm doing development for embedded devices that don't care about any locale. But I can tell you for sure that even gcc 4.7 that I have to use has std::to_string. Maybe you are not building with -std=c++11? gcc 4.9 still defaulted to C++03 (as did clang of similar age).

[Ansla]

No I didn't... I can see you think very highly of yourself with the way you expect everyone to read your post before posting a comment, but you can't assume that. Most people will just read the article and then post their comment rather than go trough pages of pages of comments before doing that.

Really? There was a single page of comments at the time you posted, it looks like you are the one that thinks very highly of yourself. And because of jerks like you that don't bother to read what was already posted we end up with pages and pages of useless comments.

[coder]

I can see you think very highly of yourself with the way you expect everyone to read your post before posting a comment, but you can't assume that.

I was frustrated by seeing all the unnecessary speculation and debate over speculation about the decision. Moreover, nobody seemed to have even bothered to see if they'd issued any kind of statement or explanation of the decision. It was not hard to find.

Most people will just read the article and then post their comment rather than go trough pages of pages of comments before doing that.

Above, I'm referring to people responding to other posts, so they're clearly looking at comments. Yours sounded like a general response in the discussion, even though you didn't specifically quote anyone. Since I infer from your tone that this was not the case, I apologize for picking on you. I hope it didn't upset you too much.

[darkcoder]

What's the problem with GCC that pushes so many people to clang LLVM??

Probably like with FreeBSD it will have to do mainly with license, and after that all the reasons posted above. GPLv3 may be a blessing for Linux, but is incompatible with many other open source licenses and projects.