Clang vs Other Open Source Compilers

Yes, EDG is commercial, but licensees do get full source.

The Clang comparison page functions as a technical orientation to Clang, giving insight into differences in approach, interfacing, and completeness among major compilers. Another important function of the comparison is to help people considering switching from some other compiler (commercial or not) to Clang.

These functions would be better served if EDG were included in the comparison.

I suggest that the title of the comparison page should be changed to “Clang vs Other Compilers”

The section for each compiler can mention the licensing terms.

Frankly, I don’t see any benefit to this. Commercial customers who have the means to license a commercial front end are going to do a far more in-depth analysis of the capabilities of the various front ends (both free and otherwise) than the “biased” analysis we put up on our web page. At best, this page provides a list of some of Clang’s advantages/disadvantages that they can weigh against a commercial vendor’s claims.

It’s worth describing Clang’s advantages and disadvantages relative to other open-source compilers because that’s a completely different market, where we’re mainly competing for mindshare among volunteers who want to do a little compiler hacking or want to build open-source tools on top of a front-end, and for whom “open source” is the first-order bit.

  • Doug

I completely agree.

-Chris

Douglas Gregor wrote:

Yes, EDG is commercial, but licensees do get full source.

The Clang comparison page <http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html&gt; functions as a technical orientation to Clang, giving insight into differences in approach, interfacing, and completeness among major compilers. Another important function of the comparison is to help people considering switching from some other compiler (commercial or not) to Clang.

These functions would be better served if EDG were included in the comparison.

I suggest that the title of the comparison page should be changed to "Clang vs Other Compilers"

The section for each compiler can mention the licensing terms.

Frankly, I don't see any benefit to this. Commercial customers who have the means to license a commercial front end are going to do a far more in-depth analysis of the capabilities of the various front ends (both free and otherwise) than the "biased" analysis we put up on our web page. At best, this page provides a list of some of Clang's advantages/disadvantages that they can weigh against a commercial vendor's claims.

It's worth describing Clang's advantages and disadvantages relative to other open-source compilers because that's a completely different market, where we're mainly competing for mindshare among volunteers who want to do a little compiler hacking or want to build open-source tools on top of a front-end, and for whom "open source" is the first-order bit.

I wonder consider all consumers of the clang front-end to care about open source as their #1 order of business.. (This is my view and please feel free to ignore it..)

If I have time and interest we'll at some point run and report the results of..

C:
  Plum Hall
     Capacity
     expr
     expr_95
     expr_98
  Perennial C
     CVSA_AMEN
     CVSA_C90
     CVSA_C99
C++
  Perennial C++
     CCVS_P0
     CCVS_P1
     CCVS_P2
     CCVS_P3_4
     CCVS_P6_7

This will hopefully give a pretty good indication about where the front-end stands in terms of conformance.. (I realize clang wasn't written with C++03 in mind and our C++ suite may not give the best coverage).. I can't predict the future, but I do wonder what the future business model of EDG will be..

Best,

./C

Douglas Gregor wrote:

Yes, EDG is commercial, but licensees do get full source.

The Clang comparison page
<http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html&gt; functions as a technical
orientation to Clang, giving insight into differences in approach,
interfacing, and completeness among major compilers. Another
important function of the comparison is to help people considering
switching from some other compiler (commercial or not) to Clang.

These functions would be better served if EDG were included in the
comparison.

I suggest that the title of the comparison page should be changed to
"Clang vs Other Compilers"

The section for each compiler can mention the licensing terms.

Frankly, I don't see any benefit to this. Commercial customers who
have the means to license a commercial front end are going to do a far
more in-depth analysis of the capabilities of the various front ends
(both free and otherwise) than the "biased" analysis we put up on our
web page. At best, this page provides a list of some of Clang's
advantages/disadvantages that they can weigh against a commercial
vendor's claims.

It's worth describing Clang's advantages and disadvantages relative to
other open-source compilers because that's a completely different
market, where we're mainly competing for mindshare among volunteers
who want to do a little compiler hacking or want to build open-source
tools on top of a front-end, and for whom "open source" is the
first-order bit.

I wonder consider all consumers of the clang front-end to care about
open source as their #1 order of business.. (This is my view and please
feel free to ignore it..)

If I have time and interest we'll at some point run and report the
results of..

I would be very interested to hear the results, if you get the time
and interest. :slight_smile:

- Daniel