<story><title>The Deletion of gcj</title><url>http://tromey.com/blog/?p=911</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>rekado</author><text>This is a little sad because this means we will have to keep around old versions of GCC with GCJ in order to be able to bootstrap the JDK from source (without a binary bootstrap JDK).  Only OpenJDK6 (with the extensive IcedTea patches) can be bootstrapped with GCJ alone, so we also have to keep OpenJDK6 around in order to be able to build the latest JDK.&lt;p&gt;Bootstrapping becomes harder and more legacy software needs to be accumulated in order to actually build new software from source.&lt;p&gt;(I&amp;#x27;m working on GNU Guix, a functional package manager, and I wrote the package definitions for the JDKs.)</text></comment>
<story><title>The Deletion of gcj</title><url>http://tromey.com/blog/?p=911</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>dragonquest</author><text>This is why you should always create something, even if you think it will never be accepted by a large audience. It is worth it for the journey itself.&lt;p&gt;Reading this post made me wish I had spent more time with &amp;#x27;gcj&amp;#x27;. Though in all honesty I know I gave up on it because I didn&amp;#x27;t want to go the tougher way - the the normal JDK was just there. Creation is beautiful, and its ending bittersweet for the creator and the witnesses.</text></comment>