Why Clang

Michel Talon talon at lpthe.jussieu.fr
Thu Jun 21 08:40:33 UTC 2012


Le 21 juin 2012 à 03:52, kpneal at pobox.com a écrit :

> 
> All of this may seem stupid to a reasonable person outside of law. I'll agree
> that it probably does look stupid. But it is also the reality of the legal
> systems we must live with today.


I can only praise kpneal for this very well argumented post. However some remarks.
The whole argument revolves around FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt. But there will
never be any shortage of lawyers trying to spread FUD on any subject to please their
clients, and if companies "bend over" instead of fighting FUD they will promptly be paralyzed.
Last time a company tried to use such tactic against Linux, it did not turn out a bright
idea. Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument may have a merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself. If FreeBSD appears
as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this will be good
for its further development. This being said, i agree with you that the FreeBSD binaries will
not see a big performance degradation through the use of clang, so, as long as gcc is in the ports
to be used with performance critical stuff, it is no big deal. Anyways as a long time FreeBSD
user i have seen clang presented as an experiment by two or three people, and then suddenly stuffed
without any discussion in the base system, apparently for political reasons that i don't share
(i mean this stupid obsession of "GPL free" system, which has replaced the previous focus on
quality and performance).


--

Michel Talon
talon at lpthe.jussieu.fr







More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list