
RMS on inclusion of basic LLDB support for gud.el - psibi
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00360.html
======
jimrandomh
Context: [http://lwn.net/Articles/629259/](http://lwn.net/Articles/629259/)

There was a recent controversy over whether gcc would export its syntax trees
for the purpose of enabling EMACS to catch up with IDEs on code analysis and
refactoring. Richard Stallman opposed this, because of fears that this would
lead to companies attaching gcc's frontends to proprietary backends, proposing
instead to make gcc output a limited subset of the syntax tree. The
controversy left the gcc-emacs integration project in a tough spot from which
it has not progressed.

The linked post refers to some work integrating emacs with LLVM, which is
gcc's chief competitor. Stallman appears to think that this is an effort to
displace gcc. Which it sort of is, but one that's necessary given that gcc is
failing to provide essential functionality.

------
gnuvince
Again? This is really getting ridiculous, gud stands for Grand __Unified
__Debugger, it makes no sense to me to refuse that it support other debuggers
that many people would find useful.

The way I see it, RMS is concerned that if people have the option of using
LLDB over GDB, it will weaken the position/status of GNU, which is why he'd
rather promote GNU tools over other free alternatives. However, isn't he
replacing one "problem" with another? If developers cannot use the tools of
their choice in Emacs, they will abandon it in favor of other development
environments.

To me, the best way to promote copyleft software is to not shelter it to the
point that it becomes its own little isolated garden. Instead, it should
strive to be a very useful citizen of the greater FLOSS ecosystem that people
choose to use because of its technical qualities.

------
mikerichards
Not knowing any context about this, I first thought hackers(crackers) were
trying to corrupt GNU packages. But of course RMS was using hyperbolic
metaphors when he said "attack" to mean he thought LLVM guys were conspiring
to sabotage GNU packages....I guess.

~~~
striking
RMS wants his packages to be the best, and watching non-free alternatives
"push major GNU packages out of use" [1] I guess could be considered an attack
on his principles.

[1]: [http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-
devel/2015-02/msg003...](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-
devel/2015-02/msg00392.html)

------
RexRollman
I think Stallman is _personally_ threatened by LLVM.

~~~
gnuvince
How can he not be? In an attempt to protect user freedom, he rejects and
blocks useful features in _his_ compiler that users want/need. When he sees
them flocking away to another free alternative compiler, he sees it as a sign
that LLVM is out to _destroy_ GNU. RMS does not realize that he is planting
the seeds of his GNU's destruction.

~~~
anonbanker
I posit that llvm is Apple's attempt to weaken the GPL by striking at the
heart of the GNU toolchain by making a better product that people would switch
to a more-exploitable license for. Steve jobs did the same to Creative/Diamond
with the iPod.

------
devnonymous
could someone offer some context ?

~~~
striking
Continue reading the replies using the links under the message. Here's an
interesting reply from Stallman: [http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-
devel/2015-02/msg003...](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-
devel/2015-02/msg00392.html)

