Military weapons have few non-violent uses. ASTs have many uses other than assisting proprietary IDEs (for example, allowing emacs to complete with proprietary IDEs on a level playing field).

It's more akin to refusing to manufacture kitchen knives and forcing all the chefs in your kitchen to chop things with spoons. Even though anybody who wants to stab people already has easy access to very big and sharp knives just by stepping into any other kitchen in the world. Also lots of your chefs keep sneaking over to the kitchen over the road to chop things and no newly trained chef wants to work in your kitchen because they think only chopping with spoons is stupid and only done by crazy religious old men with big beards. OK this metaphor is getting pretty stretched now.

I don't think the issue is just allowing proprietary IDEs to interface with Gcc; I think there are deeper issues at play.

Also, I wouldn't say that he's forcing anyone to chop things, he's more likely saying "let's make dishes from recipes which don't require chopping things", but his cooks are still used to chopping. Is there really an alternative to strong "intellisense" and refactoring abilities in IDEs for efficient development ? I don't know. I personally feels that this is a necessary step. Maybe RMS, with his experience of AI research (iirc), has a different view.

> Maybe RMS, with his experience of AI research (iirc), > has a different view.

RMS primarily uses C and Lisp. Lisp source code is a tree already. And C is so simple you can get by with tags and such.

If he was a C++/Java/C# programmer (which he is not) he may have a different feeling on the importance of the AST relative to the risk of Microsoft using gcc with VisualStuio to offer advanced features while by-passing the GPL.

Of course, but even with lisp you can't (programmatically) work on the code without having that code representation. If it's trivial, then there's no harm in opening it, but RMS thinks otherwise, so there must be something else.

The original OP was not adressing things that can have a dialetic good/bad use like a knife, but things that can only have a bad effect, like guns for instance, they will only be used to hurt or take lives, you cant cook with a gun..

In his manhattan project example, produce atomic bombs will have only one bad consequence, same with guns, but not the same as a knife.

A better analogy would be organic vs. non-organic food, where the non-organic food can get you much more consistent and cheaper results, but leads to a lot of negative externalities whose effects compound over time.

One is focused on short-term quarterly profit, the other on long-term social goods.