http://groups.google.com/groups?q=backend+gcc+stallman&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF8&selm=3r5n4j%24599%40cmcl2.NYU.EDU&rnum=5 Von:Richard Kenner (kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu)
Betrifft:Re: Modula-3 (Was: Comparison of languages for CS1 and CS2)
Newsgroups:comp.lang.ada, comp.lang.modula2, comp.lang.modula3
View: Complete Thread (29 articles) | Original Format
Datum:1995/06/08


In article <1995Jun7.101538.26580@wavehh.hanse.de> cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) writes:
>>I doubt it, what possible FSF goal can be met by such a separation, it
>>would seem to promote exactly that which FSF tries hard to prevent, the
>>creation of proprietary technologies which make use of free software.
>
>I don't think so. IMHO, the only reason why the separation isn't done
>is that noone spent the time on it.

Robert is quite correct. Richard Stallman has been adamantly opposed
to any attempt to split front ends into separate programs for
precisely the reason Robert gives.

>The GNU-Objective-C folks, for example, would be very happy to have
>their frontend mixed with the C frontent to allow Objctive-C
>programs.

True, but what does this have to do with the separation issue? It
seems instead that such mixture would be even *less* separated.

>From what I heared, the FSF would be happy to make the gcc backend an
>easier-to-use tool for language implementors.

Certainly true, but again this has nothing to do with separation of
the kind Robert was talking about.

>The backend has to be modified anyway2