I disagree here with basically everything.

Competition tends long term to provide better results, because it allows for multiple opionions by providers and choice by consumers.

No compiler is 100% bug for bug compatible with future versions of itself. If you happen to depend on bugs, you will be in trouble one day. One way to avoid this is in fact using different compilers from different providers and get an early warning.

Multiple implementations always leed to more innovation, as different leaders have different priorities causing differences in implementation.

One problem with software is the dynamic where the original source is very expensive while more copies are de facto free. Meanwhile, switching costs for users are high. This causes winner takes all dynamics where 1 vendor monopolizes a market quickly. This then causes a powerfull position for abuse, causing everyone else to suffer.

▲

adastra22 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Would you agree that we should have competing standards? Because that’s a comparable situation.

Please point to an example where competing implementations of a language led to rapid innovation, because I don’t think you will find one.the opposite is what typically happens as the need for compatibility bogs down language development.

	▲	hyperman1 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		gcc itself is a great example. Before that, we had every processor developer creating their own specific compiler. They were all expensive buggy, user unfriendly. Once a standard was implemented, there was no chance they 'd ever upgrade to the next one. Gcc was so much better than all of them. We're now at the point that a new c++ standard is available for users in a few months after being released. A big change from the not yet c89 compilers still in use in 2005 But gcc got a push themselves: from intels compiler and egcs demonstrating optimization can be better. From llvm, demonstrating sanitizers and nicer user experience. From msvc showing a less nasal demon traps. Gcc was a great pooling of effort, and they now can do more than smaller vendors because of it. But they also aren't a monopoly, and that meand we always are able to see the alternatives for it.