|
|
Andrew Haley <andrew29@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> lawrence.jones@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> That attitude is, thankfully, long gone and the current developers
>> have made significant progress in conformance, although it's
>> disappointing that standards compliance still isn't part of their
>> mission statement.
>
> Why ought it to be? The goal is freedom; if standards compliance
> helps free software -- and it usually does -- gcc will be standards
> compliant, but if standards compliance hurts free software it won't
> be.
Unless a standard is encumbered in some way (like requiring use of
patented technology that is not freely licensed), I can't see compliance
doing anything but helping free software. It seems to me that it
belongs on the list of Design and Development Goals.
> This is to misunderstand the role of the steering committee, which is
> not to make technical decisions about language details, but to make
> major decisions "in the best interests of the GCC project", which
> usually means politics.
The standardization process is, at its heart, political.
> It makes sense for gcc contibutors to attend WG meetings, and in the
> case of C++ some do -- but they don't represent the GCC project but
> their employers.
That's the problem -- it seems to me that GCC is important enough that
it deserves direct representation. The Steering Committee is the
closest thing GCC has to a formal organization that "owns" the
implementation.
-Larry Jones
I don't see why some people even HAVE cars. -- Calvin
|
|