> -----Original Message----- > From: Manuel López-Ibáñez [mailto:lopeziba...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:27 AM > To: Dave Korn > Cc: Jack Howarth; Steven Bosscher; Duncan Sands; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: dragonegg in FSF gcc? > > The fact is that it is (perceived as) more difficult to contribute to > GCC than LLVM/Clang for the reasons we all know already. And the > LLVM/Clang project has done an excellent job at presenting itself as > an alternative to GCC for those "neglected" platforms. I am not saying > this in a negative tone. I honestly think GCC could learn a lot about > marketing and usability details from LLVM.
>From my perspective (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) it is easier for >LLVM to do such marketing and focus on usability details because they seem to >have a central driver to the project, whether person/group >(founder(s)/champion(s)). GCC is, what I would call, aggressively >decentralized; Who would do such marketing? Who decides what marketing to do? >Who decides the usability details? Who would work on it? GCC is the epitome of >the saying "If you want something done, do it yourself." There is no central >authority who can, or will, make a decision about this. There is a Steering >Committee for GCC, but as they keep saying at the GCC Summits, their power and >scope is very limited. Eric Weddington
