At 09:56 AM 5/29/02, Chris Wareham wrote:
I've often wondered why gcc replaced pcc in the *BSD's. I assumed
>it was licensing reasons, or that gcc is more actively maintained.
>Does anyone maintain pcc at the moment?

Because people were working on gcc and no one was working on pcc.
Further gcc is a "suite" of tools, everything you need to compile
and link, whereas pcc needed ld and as to make binaries.

Gcc is the FSF's way of proving that Microsoft isn't the only development 
organization that can write huge bloated applications (HBAs). And not 
surprisingly they are HBA's for the same reasons, backward compatibility, 
thousands of corner cases, exceptionally wide scope, and waaaaaay to many 
programmers.

The concept was great, code generator to "standard" intermediate form, 
intermediate form to platform specific form, linked into a platform 
specific binary. But the special cases and "features" have gotten so out of 
hand as to be ridiculous.

--Chuck