Patch: delete treelang

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH]

I'm cc-ing gcc@ & gcc-patches@ list. I feel this interesting discussion 
belongs more to gcc@

Tim Josling wrote:
> 
> Treelang was based on Richard Kenner's toy language. I packaged it up to
> include as a part of GCC because toy had fallen behind the GCC mainline
> and no longer worked, and there were various versions floating around
> that were all broken in different ways. When I re-started work on my
> COBOL compiler again a few months ago, I was very pleased to see
> treelang still there because it will make my job of rebuilding an
> interface to the GCC back end a lot easier. 


> I suspect that people who have worked on GCC full time for a number of
> years, and who have commit authority, can tend to forget the many
> obstacles that are in front of someone starting work on GCC,
> particularly on a front end.


I really agree with that. We usually do not have enough in mind that GCC 
is a particularily difficult open source software to dive into. And this 
is a major bottleneck to attract new developers & maintainers.

Issues are not only on the front end. It is also difficult to interest 
people to work on the middle end, and perhaps even on the back end.

FWIW, I'm also trying to attract some new people & companies to work on 
GCC within european projects, and it is a very difficult job (even with 
the perspective of partial funding with european taxpayers' money).

> 
> The impediments to starting work on GCC, particularly building a front
> end, are formidable. Treelang was an attempt to somewhat reduce those
> impediments. In particular the front end documentation has traditionally
> been considerably more limited than the documentation for the rest of
> GCC. 

I would say the same for the middle-end also, and also for 
infrastructure stuff. Even the building part of GCC (eg Makefile.in and 
configure.ac are very intimidating).

> The main front ends also tend to fractally mix language-specific
> code with the generic GCC back end interface which makes it much harder
> to understand what the essentials are and to use one as a starting
> point.

It is very difficult to be fair and well informed, but I have the 
impression that GCC is more difficult to dive into than perhaps other 
similar monster open source (= free GPL-ed software) projects.

I tend to believe that we the GCC community should make diving into GCC 
easier, even if I don't understand how to do that. I really think that 
GCC is still lacking of developers (& developping efforts), and that its 
current state (which is remarkable for a 20+ years software) make it too 
intimidating for many potential developers.

Regards.
-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***