Government surveillance? The technology you have supported can be the best means to bring more surveillance to the web - for instance, by allowing you to view certain subsets of the web only if you're using a proprietary browser with spyware built-in.
When we're running apps, we inevitably end up with using at least one QT app, at least one GTK app and probably in future at least one Aura app. These libraries have a huge level of duplication (e.g. each one will have a completely separately implemented file dialog). Add to this that each library will be used in several incompatible versions and you end up with serious bloat.
That's true, but how much can that bloat amount to? 20 MB? 100 MB? It won't be much relevant for today's standards. Code duplication is what happens regularly in the closed source world, where applications ship with a private version of all the libraries they use, and not only for the UI - with few people complaining.
Ive gotten the impression that the GTK3 folks werent terribly interested in hearing other people's thoughts.
This sounds like a serious problem; do we have any proper evidence?
https://mail.gnome.org/archive... - don't know if things have changed in the last two years.
And then again, why should anyone have a say on what toolkit Google decide to use for their own browser? Did "the Free Software Community" have anything to say when it was slang vs ncurses, emacs vs vim, gtk vs qt, gnome vs kde? No, because exploring alternate solutions is good for the whole community in the long run. Please stop this poisonous attitude of finding "enemies of the people" among people who dare write free software.
Basically what is happening here is poor people paying to let the richest people on Earth fly they own private jets. But the company that is benefiting from that is only in personal union with Google, so "don't be evil" doesn't apply here. IANAL.
As an EU supporter, I'm afraid that at the next european elections we'll see a triumph of every kind of populism / demagogy / nationalism, left-wing and right-wing, and the people who get elected will work exclusively to suppress the EU from the inside. And I have few arguments against them left. The EU can't carry on by having only the support of the "elite" who can understand the advantages of the common market. They need to conquer back the trust of regular people, or they will disappear.
even Microsoft changes its file formats and breaks compatibility occasionally.
To make an example, once Microsoft broke a Word (2000 IIRC) VBA application of mine because a service pack, not even a version upgrade, changed the indexing of tables' elements from being zero-based to being one-based. I was shocked to see that they care so little about compatibility.
Clang error output includes full static analysis,
The compiler is one thing, the static analyzer is another. The error messages of the two compilers are comparable. I've already admitted that GCC is not as suitable for tooling as LLVM is.
"Hip" seems to be your biased way to say modern.
Of course every judgement of value I make is biased, it reflects my opinion. I do my best to avoid objectively false statements, and I like to be corrected when that happens.
And no, small differences in executable speed is not the primary concern of most compiler users.
See that everybody's biased? You say "small difference", others could use different terms when the objective data is "up to 39%". As for the fact that compiler users don't care about speed, you should ask the end users of the binaries about that, rather than the users of the compiler itself. Personally, if ease of development was my primary concern, I'd code everything in Java. GCC even supports it
Not so much. This very story is about ESR questioning why GPL GCC deliberately prevents non-GPL software from linking with it. Thus handicapping GCC for developers of IDEs and other tools. And the answer from RMS, that he refuses to compromise, and thus GCCs restrictions remain.
This very story is about ESR not being aware that GCC does have a plugin system and a license exception allowing it to link with GPL-compatible software (such as BSD) for that purpose. The reasons why this interface does not find much use is technical, not political: GCC internals are (1) not modular and (2) do not expose stable programming interfaces. These facts would not change even if GCC was relicensed overnight to the BSD license or the WTF license.