On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:44 AM, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> The reason why I am mystified is that the people who seem to argue >>> that it would be pointless to convert the existing codebase to C++ seem >>> to be the same people who insist on seeing significant part of GCC >>> converted to C++ before we switch to *building* stage1 with a C++ compiler. >> >> What is so puzzling about it? If we don't have a proof that what the GCC in >> C++ proponents are wanting is actually beneficial for GCC, then just >> switching building stage1 to C++ is not a step in the right direction, >> it removes options from those that build GCC or at least makes building >> GCC unnecessarily bigger hassle. >> If the switch followed by several conversions to C++ is done on a branch >> only and the merits are then judged afterwards, we don't do the problematic >> step on the trunk until it actually gives some benefits (if ever). > > Part of the reason this discussion is not reaching a consensus is > because it is not addressing the real issue. The challenge is how to > make GCC an attractive platform for developers -- how to attract new > developers. > > Among FOSS compilers, LLVM attracts developers. Other than licensing > and politics and marketing, the anecdotal comments from developers > mention C++ as a technical reason. > > And other than existing GCC developers who are comfortable with the > current C codebase, I think some participants in this thread are > concerned that the C++ complaint is a red herring. In other words, > some developers resist GCC because it does not match their comfort > zone and when asked for a technical reason, C++ is an easy answer. I > think some members of the GCC community have a nagging concern that > even if GCC goes through the pain of transitioning to C++, it will not > move the ball on attracting developers, but will divert resources and > will discourage existing developers.
On the other hand, it may also attract additional resources to help out. Not changing anything is certainly not going to help here. thanks, David
