Re: Should native compilation be enabled by default?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  >   On general principles we can see that native
  > > compilation is likely to go wrong because something has disappeared,
  > > or because of bugs in other programs that you wouldnt otherwise ever
  > > use.
  > >
  > > Native compilation is useful mainly for power users who want
  > > to run Lisp programs that normally are too slow.  There is no sense
  > > directing most users into doing things gthe complex way instead
  > > of the simple way.

  > I don't see why native compilation should be more complex for users,
  > AFAIK is transparent.

I meant complex in one specific sense.  You're talking about a
different sense, so we are talking past each other,

  > Anyway as a data point: AFAIK major distros decided since a while to
  > ship with native compilation as (I assume) they deemed it beneficial for
  > their users.

I ssppose so.  But the fact that they think so is not a convincing
argument for us.

If we poll the users, we would have a basis to conclude that those
distros' choice is wise, or that it was hasty and unwise.  It is
better to make sure of this than to follow the herd.

As I stated a few days ago, there may be a better alternative
somewhere between "yes, always" and "no, never".

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)