[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Thought Police - was C++ to C compiler
From:       Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey () switchco ! com>
Date:       1999-10-20 3:01:36
[Download RAW message or body]

Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> I wrote:
> > >Please don't promote proprietary software on this list.
> 
> and Marc Espie objected to my objection.
> 
> Please note that I am requesting this (as in "please don't", not,
> "we'll kick you off unless").  I don't plan to try playing net
> cop.

	Yet you continue to do so.

> Now that we've re-unified development, this is a GNU list, so let's
> show a little bit of respect for the guy that wrote gcc in the first
> place.  OK?  

	I really don't appreciate the thought police jumping down people's
throats every time an opinion or advice is offered that might offend
or doesn't pay homage to the FSF deity. 

	I happened to mention (only when asked and on topic) that I couldn't
participate in development of a GNU (or FSF-assigned) project in
response to a request for participation in development of the new
libstdc++ library. I was immediately hit with private emails demanding
to know why. In fact, some individuals, apparently not liking my
answers, insist that I continue to debate the issue with them even
though I have politely made it very clear that I was not interested. I
will now ask them publicly to please desist.

> If someone is looking for a proprietary C++ solution, I
> suggest looking on comp.lang.c++.moderated.  It isn't the role of this
> list to answer every concern any reader might have.

	As I recall, no one came looking for a proprietary C++ solution. The
question was raised as to whether or not g++ supported compilation to
C code rather than object code. It wasn't until it was made clear than
a "free" solution did not exist for that person that someone, rather
nicely I think, offered an alternate suggestion. I find the knowledge
that such an alternative option is available both interesting and
helpful and not at all warranting the request for corrective action.

	The vast majority of people participating on this list are very
competent professionals who are well aware of the FSF and gcc's
history. They don't need to be constantly reprimanded for incorrect
thinking or speech. This kind of "my way or the highway" attitude is a
good part of what alienated many of the developers and caused the egcs
split to ensue. The egcs project list stuck to talking about
developing the best compiler development system money could (or
couldn't as may be the case) buy. I suggest that this list continue
that tradition, even if a couple of politically incorrect opinions or
options happen to slip into the mix.

	regards,

		Ben Scherrey

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]