Embedded platforms, Apple (100€£$/year), Windows, PGI/CUDA, IBM/xlc,game consoles,....
The compiler isn't commercial, unless you are saying that anything Apple makes is "commercial" because they are a for-profit business.
You only need to pay for it if you distribute your app on the app store.
The only examples that come to mind of a "pure" commercial compiler, not tied to a particular environment or piece of hardware are the Comeau C++ compiler (defunct for well over a decade) and arguably the original D compiler (although I don't know if it qualifies as proprietary, just not open source). Swift as well, although it was open sourced relatively quickly.
Symantec signed off on it a few years ago, it's been Boost licensed ever since.
These restrictions only apply to the Visual Studio IDE.
> Any individual developer can use Visual Studio Community to create their own free or paid apps.
No revenue cap to be found. Also:
> In non-enterprise organizations, up to five users can use Visual Studio Community.
Again - no revenue cap. And finally:
> enterprise organizations (meaning those with >250 PCs or >$1 Million US Dollars in annual revenue)
Now call be a naive buffoon, but in my book, >$1M annual revenue and/or >250 IT workplaces means that licensing costs for software are not a problem at all. This restriction also only applies to commercial use - academic, OSS, and classroom environments are still allowed.
I really don't see how this is constricting in any way.
Edit: [1] https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/community/ (under "Usage")
As soon as a commercial organisation enters 250+ IT workplaces and >$1M annual revenue, license management becomes relevant in any case and isn't exactly "strings attached"-territory. Feel free to disagree, but I still think your argument is pretty weak.
The compiler is not commercial and does not require a developer account.
Can you do something completely unrelated to the question at hand without fulfilling requirements entirely unrelated to the question at hand? No.
That doesn't make the compiler commercial.
> Or to end users in some other way?
You can put your mac application on your website more or less as you've always been able to.
If I forked GCC and made a version where the produced binaries would only run on the machine where the compiler ran, and removing that was a subscription...I'd call it a commercial product.
(Ignoring the GPL issues)
clang is always a cross-compiler, including the versions shipped by Apple.
https://www.macworld.co.uk/how-to/mac-software/mac-app-unide...
Fwiw, I find the canned responses like "appeal to authority", "whataboutism", etc, kind of lazy. I'd prefer you tell me why I'm veering off in your own words.
Not a compiler, but the same idea.
An “enterprise” is any organization and its affiliates who collectively have either (a) more than 250 PCs or users or (b) one million U.S. dollars (or the equivalent in other currencies) in annual revenues, and “affiliates” means those entities that control (via majority ownership), are controlled by, or are under common control with an organization."