🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <H.eg.sISqCqbnpuk@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>>But ENTERing the market with a new, innovative compiler idea is QUITE
>>a different task now than years ago.
>
[stuff deleted]
>if someone did come up with one, and the innovation was really useful,
>rather than merely decorative, I can't see how gcc would impede sales of
>it. 
>	Perhaps what you really mean is that the presence of gnu software on
>the market means a company has to come out with a product which does as
>good a job as the equivalent gnu software in their first release, rather
>than releasing a bug ridden, not particularly effecient product, and
>then using the customer's money to refine the porduct (or add new
>features which allow charging of upgrade fees)
>	If most software companies had the professional standards of a
>normal business, perhaps they'd be more competitive.

(Sorry for the long quote...)

No, I'm not saying this. I'm saying that if someone would come up with a 
new, excellent compiler, they would have a hard time entering the market
because
a) They would not have a big name (Borland, GNU)
b) Why pay $400 for their compiler, even if it has these new features when
   gcc is free... not getting a chance to know those new features.

Being bug-ridden or not has got very little to do with it, because the
bugs only matter after they get a reputation of any kind.

The point is, although I consider GNU a Good Thing in general, I wouldn't
put any program on my home PC any more that I couldn't get the source to,
GNU is weeding out the diversity of the software market. Few people will
undertake the task to make a new C compiler from scratch, even though
they might have several better ideas than GNU. Gcc is slow in compilation
(especially on a machine like mine at home), but still, it's free...
why not be satisfied? This attitude is very dangerous, it leads into 
accepting much lower quality software, because of the concentrated 
effort. GNU has several people working on this stuff, why would I
want to do anything about it, even though I knew how to? 

To me, it seems that concentration of effort to bring out 'free' (in 
GNU's terms (I do not disagree with the definition, just in case someone
else does)) software is actually harmful to the free software itself.
Just look at Gnu Emacs... several megabytes of an EDITOR in memory.
(This is my personal view, it is NOT intended to start an editor flame
war) This is an example of a concentrated effort in the (IMHO) wrong
direction... But again, it's free, who would like to make another
one that would never get as much acclaim...

Please, when followuppying to this message, don't flame, these thoughts
are just rough sketches of ideas coming from someone having troubly
expressing himself verbally in any way.


	TJL