Clang comparison page

Sorry missed the reply all button, forwarding to the group

Joel

I think it is true that the Elsa community is "extremely small", do you disagree with that part?

No I think you are completely correct. I just wouldn't call that a technical point. That may be the *result* of technical weaknesses (as you argue well), or it could be the result of a lack of the kind of promotion you do for clang. Either way I think it is not itself material.

Basically I think Clang can win on technical merits, so why not leave it at that?

Joel,

At this point in clang's development, we are more interested in education and less focused on "winning":-).

The size and "culture" of the community is informational (though culture is hard to communicate in a few sentences).

Based on your comments, I think it might make sense to separate the "Community size/culture information" from the technical pros/cons.

snaroff

then I think Elsa could be adopted as
the C++ parser if there were no technical issues, or if the cost of
resolving the technical issues was less than the cost of a
reimplementation.

If a reader has the ability to reimplement an entire C++ compiler from scratch and has the desire to do so, presumably they wouldn't be looking at either clang or elsa :). The rest of the bullets explain technical problems that prevent clang from adopting Elsa.

The only reason someone would be comparing Elsa and Clang today would be if they are interested in helping to implement a c++ parser themselves in clang (as you basically said).

No, I don't think that is the case. I think it's fair to say that people looking at elsa and clang are doing so because they *don't* want to implement a C++ parser, they just want to use one. The goal of the comparison is to make it possible for someone with a specific application goal (e.g. "build a refactoring tool for C") to decide whether clang is a good match for their goals.

I just thought these two points may be unfair given the scope of this
doc is stated as "We restrict the discussion to very specific
technical points to avoid controversy where possible." Maybe its this
statement which should be changed, instead.

I think it is true that the Elsa community is "extremely small", do you disagree with that part?

No I think you are completely correct. I just wouldn't call that a technical point.

Fair enough. I changed the intro to be a bit more clear about what we're comparing, hopefully this make sense:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20071210/003263.html

That may be the *result* of technical weaknesses (as you argue well), or it could be the result of a lack of the kind of promotion you do for clang. Either way I think it is not itself material. Basically I think Clang can win on technical merits, so why not leave it at that?

As Steve mentioned, this is about communication, not "winning". The comparison makes it very clear that if one needs C++ support in the immediate future, Elsa *is* a better solution than clang.

I strongly believe that community is an important issue for many groups who are "shopping around" for a compiler front-end to use. In academic research, for example, people are often under tight deadlines and want to focus their limited time and energy on getting their research goals accomplished. Few people in academia are given the opportunity to do a significant amount of infrastructure work. Having a solid base to build on and having a community willing to help fix bugs and answer questions is extremely valuable to these (and many other) people.

-Chris

Chris,

Thanks for taking my feedback, I think anyone can see that you're more
than fair in maintaining this doc.

I believe clang is certainly coming along at the right time, best of
luck to the team. I am looking forward to completion of C support, and
then C++ afterwards.

Joel