> -----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

Reply via email to