I have no stake in Elsa, and I've never used it, but my thoughts: Elsa is not a compiler, so I'm not sure that the following point is appropriate:
"Elsa does not support native code generation." Also the following point seems to be a political (and practical, granted) rather than a technical criticism: "The Elsa community is extremely small and major development work seems to have ceased in 2005, though it continues to be used by other projects (e.g. Oink). Clang has a vibrant community including developers that are paid to work on it full time." A small community is only a problem for those who do not have the resources to contribute to the project themselves. Since as you say Clang has plenty of resources, 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. 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. On Dec 9, 2007 9:27 PM, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I whipped up this page to help answer some commonly asked questions > about how clang compares to other compilers: > http://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html > > Comparisons like this are often very sensitive so please let me know > if I am saying anything unfair/non-objective, or am forgetting anything. > > Thanks! > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
