On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 16:53 +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 16:17, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > On Monday 16 May 2005 16:53, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > > > The problem is, a bloated GCC has no consequences for the majority of > > > GCC developers -- their employers have other (and valid) concerns. It's > > > less a matter of laziness than it is of not caring outside one's own > > > backyard. > > > > And to second your point in an awkward way: I don't see this as a > > problem. If all those people who think this is a problem would > > also fund GCC development (with hard cash or with developers), who > > knows, probably things would look different. > > if only it were that simple[1]. However, even if the money does get > spent it's unlikely to help because there are too many developers that > just DON'T CARE about (or worse, seem to be openly hostile to) making > the compiler more efficient.
They don't care because nobody pays them to care (IE you've got it backwards), and they have other higher priority spare time projects that they like to work on. If you want to change the priorities of paid developers, you will have to do so by affecting the work they are paid to do, not by trying to convince them that speeding up the compiler is better than whatever hobby projects they enjoy working on. This is because speeding up the compiler is almost never an enjoyable hobby project :).
