"Richard L. Hamilton" <rlhamil at smart.net> writes:
> > Why exclude GCJ (i.e. the Java compiler) and GNAT
> > (Ada compiler)?
> > Objective C++ may be inappropriate, on the other
> > hand: it is not built by
> > default, its future maintenance is highly uncertain,
> > so it may be better
> > not to include it in the first place.
>
> Why do you say "its future maintenance is highly uncertain"?
>
> GNUstep needs it, so does the Mac (the latter implying a sponsor with
> some resources).
I think you're mistaken here: GNUstep is (to the best of my knowledge)
written in Objective-C, which is a mature and stable part of GCC. On the
other hand, Objective-C++ is a recent addition to GCC, not built by default
(and has been broken several times). Its maintenance depends on Apple
maintainers, which are currently forbidden from further contributing to GCC
development due to some Apple concerns about GPLv3. In fact, Apple seems
to switch/have switched from GCC to LLVM as its system compiler.
> The more languages, the merrier; they're all invitations to port apps,
> and their absence prevents or impedes ports. Without apps, neither
> the OS nor the hardware are of much use...
True enough; that's why I objected to omitting GCJ and GNAT. But including
unstable/unmaintained languages doesn't buy you anything.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University
