Re: LLVM

[Nicolas Roard]

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Graham J Lee <leeg@thaesofereode.info> wrote:
>  Given a finite amount of developer time, and the choice between yet
>  another ObjC compiler or better ObjC support in GCC, I'd choose the
>  latter :-).

Just pointing that this assertion is only valid if the amount of
effort is actually equivalent, which in our case isn't. It's easier to
do the things that dave wants to do with LLVM than it is with GCC.
Reversely, ObjC support with LLVM would not just be "another objc
compiler", but an objc compiler + lots of cool features as dave
highlighted that are for the moment near impossible to do with GCC.
Adding support for those in GCC would be a _lot_ more than using LLVM
directly. For what I understand the problem here is really an
architectural problem with GCC rather than merely a licence
preference.

Anyway, objc's gcc support will not go away either so I really don't
see the problematic here...

-- 
Nicolas Roard
"Java, the best argument for Smalltalk since C++ " -- Frank Winkler