>> http://blog.alphagemini.org/2008/03/icc-vs-gcc-43.html
>> http://www.osnews.com/comments/19462

> 
> Um......  Did you actually read the links you posted?  In the first
> one, the ICC bar (program run time) is *less then* half the size of
> the gcc one and the blogger mentions that GCC has a long way to go at
> the end of the article!

Reading again, I see that the blogger's last sentence is "the advantage 
of ICC over GCC is negligible and wouldn't justify the time spent in 
recompilation and porting."

as for the two sets of bars, they reflect these figures:

GCC-4.1.2: 437.24 sec
GCC-4.2.3: 436.98 sec
GCC-4.3.0: 436.17 sec
ICC 10.1: 429.72 sec

and

GCC-4.1.2: 217.00 sec
GCC-4.2.3: 216.97 sec
GCC-4.3.0: 206.90 sec
ICC 10.1: 191.91 sec

(note that a comment rightly says: 'Your graphs aren't optimal, because 
if you look only at the graphs, you think icc is twice as fast as gcc.')

so, to answer your question, yes I actually read the link (twice now), 
and not only had a fast glance at the pictures...


> Look, I'm as glad that there is free software out there for me to use
> and learn from as the next guy (and I even contribute with a
> "libre"-free license).  But there is absolutely nothing wrong with
> people who sell software.  They make a strategic choice.  Companies
> like RedHat choose to use a software product as a loss leader to drum
> up dollars for their support infrastructure.  Places like Cinicom
> chose to forgo the potentially risky loss leader strategy.  If someone
> thinks one of these strategies is some kind of "guiding light" and the
> other is morally bankrupt then that person is, in the best case,
> incredibly naive.

sure, I said business => quality is an ideological statement.
open source => quality or business => crap would be other ideological 
statements.

my point was: let's not be ideological.


regards,

Stef