> One other point I must make is in regards to clang's Objective-C support vs. > that of GCC. GCC regards Objective-C as a second class language and has > done so for some time. Objective-C, according to recent statistics has > surpassed C++ in the number of developers using it (see this link > http://www.i-programmer.info/news/98-languages/4462-objective-c-overtakes-c > -in-tiobe-index.html).
I think that neither GCC nor any other compilers can reasonably compete with clang when it comes to Objective-C given that clang is effectively the reference implementation of the language through the connection with Apple. > Clang has, in my experience, at least the above two advantages over GCC. My > project is a free software project, but, yet, we are already starting to > shift towards using Clang as our primary compiler for the above two reasons > among others. It will not surprise me if I see more projects go the same > way. Your case (implementation of Cocoa + Objective-C parser) is very specific though so generalizing from it alone seems a bit fast. > Is it enough to "win" based on philosophical grounds, but lose on technical > ones? And if GCC loses on technical grounds aren't you, in effect, losing > the war since fewer people will end up using your stuff since it doesn't do > what they need or want? I don't believe that making technical decisions on > the basis of political ends really wins anything. A message earlier in > this same thread bears out that many technical decisions on GCC were, in > fact, made for political reasons and that GCC should carefully consider > which ones should be rescinded. Why do you think that there is a war? It's at most a competition between projects with a different focus and different strengths. -- Eric Botcazou
