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.
Clang is slightly faster than GCC, when compiling at the same optimization level.
Clang is written in C++ and modular, and as result of this, it is more embeddable in third party projects and it can target multiple platforms with a single executable. Work is being done in GCC to address this but I'm talking about released code here.
But when we consider less "hip" features, GCC makes faster code (which is usually the foremost interest of a compiler's user). And GCC supports more target platforms. And GCC supports more language features (FORTRAN, OpenMP, VLAIS).
A GCC developer's benchmark about GCC's vs clang's speed of compilation and of the resulting code.
The truth is that not even the various Churches believe in many of those supernatural gurus or miraculous places. But they can't deny them, because people like to believe in them and they can't afford losing more faithful; because locals earn a lot from religious tourism and the Churches get their share of that money; and possibly because advocating for rationality in religion-based matters for them would be like throwing stones in the proverbial glass house.
Try tweeting about bombs in the UK, promoting nazism in Germany, communism in Poland, "making homosexual propaganda" in Russia, and see the freedom of expression you enjoy in the mythical North.
Which is not to say that censorship is acceptable or that people who'd like to be ruled by "golden dawn" are sane, it's just that being "mediterranean" is not one of their problems.
Reality can be more funny than Soviet Russia jokes.
Again, SpaceX built a new rocket engine and two new rockets and launched them into space for less than NASA spent to put a dummy upper stage on top of a shuttle SRB and launch it into the Atlantic Ocean.
I think that it's not fair if you don't say that SpaceX did what they did by using NASA's research (which has huge costs that get written under NASA's budget but not SpaceX's) and with NASA's money (that is, it's the government and only the government that enabled them to reach their achievements).
The GNU folks "got what they wanted" when Tiemann added C++ to gcc because of the GPL license. Same thing happened with Jobs and Objective C. The GPL is proven to work, and it especially used to work back in the days when spreading FUD about the GPL wasn't fashionable.
About not buying stuff that I don't get source code for: that can only be a philosophical proposition in today's world. The GPL is a bastion to keep our devices hackable, and as you say BSD-licensed code will make the situation worse.
Bringing computers into the home won't change either one, but may revitalize the corner saloon.