Re: Does the LGPL encourage sharing of code?

Anthony Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> Boris Buegling wrote:
> 
> >Brett Glass sez:
> >
> >>If they'd cared, they would have started from scratch. GCC (especially
> >>at that time and still today) was not a particularly good compiler.
> >>
> >You're right, GCC sucks, so does Linux. Hmmm, wait, why does anyone use it
> >then ? Ah, there's nothing else available ! Hmmm, wait, there is some compiler
> >my Microsoft, which sucks and there's Borland C++, which also sucks. So, I guess
> >GCC is not so bad in comparison to these famous commercial compilers.
> 
> I'm *not* coming to Brett's defense here, as his statements are not very
> intelligent (which is strange, because Brett isn't a stupid person, just
> obsessive).  However, Brett is correct in that GCC's code isn't as
> efficient as some compilers: for instance, Sun's compiler produces
> better SparcV9 code, and IBM's compiler produces better PowerPC code.
>  ("Better" here means more efficient, faster code.)  Even Intel's
> compiler produces better code than GCC.

plus they have better profiling abilities, better debugging and doesn't
suffer version incompatibilies... the list goes on.  Forte produces better
V7 code too (for the SPARC).  Heard the x86 version produces better code
than the gcc too (but haven't verified this).
 
> All these compilers prove that GCC is *not* killing off other compilers.
>  Brett would be hard-pressed to come up with a *single* example of a
> compiler which GCC has killed.

metaware.  watcom.   

> In the PC world, Zortech was killed by
> MS and Borland; Borland is slowly being displaced by an inferior
> *commercial* product (MS Visual C/C++/etc).  In fact, every single
> argument Brett has put forth is unsupported by the evidence.

Personally, I think the pro-GPL camp has less evidence shown for it here.  One can
easily come up with simple economic reasons why *GPL has problems.  
 
> His statement that GCC is "inferior" is also debatable.  GCC is designed
> primarily to be portable, and efficiency is a secondary consideration.

oh?  So you run NetBSD other than linux because you think it is superior?
Portability is an attibute of how something does something.  It is not a ranking.

> GCC has better standards compliance for C; 

Better?  I suppose that's relative.  This is illegal C, but the gcc eats it fine
(without
giving it the "don't use gcc extensions mode":

#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
  int x[ argc ];
  x[0] = 0;
  printf( "%d\n", x[0]);
}

I've seen lots of code that GCC eats that it shouldn't.  Most of the problems
reported for gcc 3.x is that it won't compile things that it did before - GCC
is not a poster child for standardization.

> it's C++ support is lags a little bit, but is quickly catching up,

yeah... it's only been around for what?  15 years?

> especially with regards to templates.  So, for the design goals of GCC,
> it is far beyond *any* other compiler.

personally, I think the unix philosophy of small(er) components ends up with
better results than one monolithic program.

> In fact, I'd suggest that GCC even *created* some compiler markets.  For
> instance, several years ago, every Unix came with a compiler.  Now,
> hardly any commercial Unix comes with a compiler; it has been unbundled,
> and is sold separately.  Sun now makes money off its compiler, when
> before it was bundled with the OS.  Ask Sun why, and they will say, "Use
> GCC if you need a free compiler.  Buy ours if you need speed and
> efficiency."  At least, that was the gist of it when I talked to a Sun
> engineer.

This is *precisely* the case why the GPL sucks.  So, instead of 10 people paying
$200 for a compiler (the bundled cc on SunOS sucked.  It was K&R only.  It was there
because you had to relink the kernel), the gcc makes it so 9 / 10 who can suffer with
the mediocre compiler does, and the 1 person left now has to pay $2000 for the
compiler
(and as a person who DOES buy the compiler, the price has gone up significantly,
while
they OS prices has been going down, so it's hard to argue that it doesn't have any
effect).
Had it been BSD based, I think things would be different.  Under this scenario, there
would be incentive to use the BSD base, and make extensions off of it.  So Sun/IBM...
would still have (presumably) their own version, but the software would be cheaper
to produce (thus allowing the price to be lower), and the compatibility between the
compilers would be better.
 
> Some people really like the chaos around the Linux kernel development.
>  I know I prefer the unfettered nature.  And if I wanted a
> technically-superior kernel, I'd switch to the Hurd, which is a better
> designed kernel than Linux or any of the BSDs.  And it came right from
> the bossom of Stallman himself, so it'd piss Brett off even more.
> 

I should point out that proverb: 'what looks good on paper doesn't necessarily
translate to the real world'.... (or something like that).  Look at NextStep.

-r