On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Richard Kenner <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >> > Yes, I would mind, because it's not MY issue, but RMS's! I don't want >> > to speculate why RMS might not want to use C++ >> >> That is non argument: RMS has not not contributed any executable >> code for GCC, and even less the C++ front-end, for YEARS now. > > What does that have to do with expressing philosophical beliefs about how > software development should be done?
You asserted I don't want to speculate why RMS might not want to use C++ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But, in this case the users of C++ would be the GCC developers. Those are the ones directly suffering the handcuffs. > You don't lose the right to stop > doing that about a project you run just because you haven't written any > code for a while! Many managers in software companies haven't written code > for years but routinely make decision on language choices for projects and > expect their subordinates to follow those decisions. and reasonings along those lines are what gets us in the current mess you claim you do not understand. BTW, when did FSF turned into a software company? I thought it was a 501(c)3 donor supported charity, fighting for the essential freedoms for computer users. -- Gaby
