Re: Clang/LLVM migration roadmap

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

> On 14 Feb 2022, at 08:54, Andreas Fink <afink@list.fink.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Boyd wrote on 14.02.22 08:54:
>> Riccardo,
>> 
>> Thanks for the response. I agree there is certainly a distinction between 
>> the user types and I, as a developer myself, was referring to #2. However, I 
>> disagree that catering to each group is equally important at this juncture 
>> for two reasons: 
>> 
>> 1) GNUstep doesn’t currently have enough quality apps to attract user #1. 
>> That is not to say, of course, that it has none, but I think it would be 
>> uncontroversial to say that it could benefit from having more—a lot more. 
>> 
>> 2) GNUstep’s utility comes not only from its general purpose end-user apps, 
>> but also from its facility as a framework for people writing narrow-purpose, 
>> highly customized apps. This is what I use GNUstep for primarily. My apps 
>> will only ever be used by a small number of people in my company because 
>> they are highly specialized to address a specific process or function unique 
>> to us. Indeed, going back to the early 90’s, this has always been a strength 
>> of the NEXTStep/OpenStep/GNUstep/Cocoa framework.
>> 
>> For these two reasons, I believe it is more
>> important for GNUstep to focus on attracting developers. And if you attract 
>> more developers—particularly developers writing quality, general purpose 
>> apps—that will, in turn, attract more end users. 
>> 
>> Lastly, to your point about people having freedom to choose which tools they 
>> want to use, I don’t disagree at all. This is FOSS and freedom is what makes 
>> FOSS great. However, in the long run, if we want users of any kind to be 
>> able to choose GNUstep at all, we need to grow the project now and that 
>> means attracting more developers, in my humble opinion. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
> 
> I can only double that. If I look at myself, I use GNUstep because I
> need portable apps on MacOS and Linux and other Unixes. If I would be
> constrained to not using ARC, then basically, GNUstep would not be an
> option 


There is a danger in using mailing lists where people have different languages 
and backgrounds, promoting misunderstandings!

The moment you suggest a weired hypothetical like 'If I would be constrained to 
not using ARC', other people will think someone proposed it, which is 
definitely *not* the case.

Then we have to waste hours of time sending out emails to say that no, nobody 
is proposing removing ARC support.


However, I take your later points:

1. getting clang/linker working was initially tricky and the toolchain is 
fragile
2. a clang toolchain is available all for the platforms *you* are interested in
3. it works well and has features you want for your development

I think everyone I know agrees with much of those, and the discussion on 
improvement is about improving on that situation (widening portability and ease 
of use).