|What's available in Compiler Jobs ? email@example.com (Ajig Alcalde) (1998-04-15)|
|Re: What's available in Compiler Jobs ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-04-18)|
|Re: What's available in Compiler Jobs ? email@example.com (1998-04-18)|
|Re: What's available in Compiler Jobs ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-04-21)|
|Re: What's available in Compiler Jobs ? cliff.click@Eng.Sun.COM (Clifford Click) (1998-04-21)|
|Re: What's available in Compiler Jobs ? email@example.com (Thomas Lindgren) (1998-04-27)|
|Date:||21 Apr 1998 00:34:13 -0400|
In comp.compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Dwight VandenBerghe) writes:
>But gcc pretty much killed the marketplace for
>generic C/C++ compilers. Stallman, in religious fervor, put many of
>us out of work with his programs, which if I read the GPL right, was
>his explicit intention.
I probably won't be the only person to say this, but I think that a
better way of describing gcc is that it raises the bar. If you want
to write a new compiler, it has to be substantially better than gcc.
In fact, there are several compilers better than gcc out there, and
somebody must be writing them.
Moreover, Cygnus Solutions, my employer, has a compiler team of 10
people or so, and has open job reqs for more compiler engineers, all
working with gcc. (Not that I recommending studying compilers in
order to get a job with Cygnus.)
I also don't know why you blame Stallman more than Microsoft. I
expect that more people use Visual C++ than use gcc.
Finally, Stallman's intention was not, of course, to put people out of
work, although he would probably accept that as a consequence.
Considering the state of the programming field today, I'd be pretty
surprised if anybody was unemployed because gcc took his or her job
(change jobs, perhaps; lose jobs, no).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.