On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 13:08, Jack Howarth <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:10:14PM -0700, Toby Peterson wrote: >> >> I don't care... although your claim that it'd take "many years" is a >> little silly. >> >> - Toby > > Ahem. Have you have participated in any of these projects? Look at the > timeline for gfortran (which had the advantages of starting from the > g95 source code base which as in turn derived from the g77 source code). > From wikipedia http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/TheOtherGCCBasedFortranCompiler... > > In early 2000 Andrew Vaught started g95, a project to create a free software > Fortran 95 compiler using the GCC backend. This was a collaborative project > for two years, but in late 2002 Andrew decided to become sole developer of > g95. The gfortran project was created in January 2003 as a fork from the > GPL-licensed g95 source code at that time, in order to allow for cooperative > development and integration with the GCC codebase. > > Since that time, Andrew has continued development of g95 independently, and > the codebases of g95 and gfortran have significantly diverged. Thus, the > gfortran team is unable to provide support or advice regarding g95. > > Considering that gcc 4.2 was the first really usable gfortran release, > this means that the development time from its original origins to the > first stable release (http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html) was seven years. > Also keep in mind any fortran project in llvm can't start with sources > imported from later than gcc 4.2.1 without changing the license to > GPLv3. We would also be competing for the limited pool of developers > interested in fortran development against an existing project. Lastly > most hard core open source compiler development is actually done by > programmers employed to do so by a company and not folks in their > basements. Since Apple's management has no interest in fortran development, > another major entity would have to switch from FSF gcc to llvm clang > to provide the necessary resources for any new fortran compiler in > llvm clang to be viable. We need to be realistic about what is possible > at the moment.
You really don't need to reply to every email with a wall of text. Anyway, you're right that a new fortran frontend would take "many years" if there are only a couple of volunteer developers. However, since llvm is under a good license it's much more likely for real development to take place. - Toby _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
