Already looking forward to `grep`ing warning emojis in output. What's next? Poop emoji for errors?
(BTW my terminal does not even support emojis.)
31–40 of 231 posts
Already looking forward to `grep`ing warning emojis in output. What's next? Poop emoji for errors?
(BTW my terminal does not even support emojis.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GCC can honestly only blame itself for its inevitable increasing obsolescence. LLVM only has the attention it has because it can be used as a building block in other compilers. GCC could've made a tool and library which accepts IR, performs optimizations and emits machine code, but the project avoided that for ideological reasons, and as a result created a void in the ecosystem for a project like LLVM.
Yet another reason why I'm not a fan of Richard Stallman. Most of the decisions he made over the past 25 years have been self-defeating and led directly to the decline of the influence of his own movement. It's not that "the GCC project" avoided that for ideological reason, Stallman was personally a veto on that issue for years, and his personal objection led to several people quitting the project for LLVM, with a co…
The template error messages look great. I wonder if it’s worth writing a translator from clang/gcc messages to these ones, for users of clang and older gcc (to pipe one’s error messages to)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which open-source licenses can't be used together?
GPLv2 and GPLv3, for one example... It's sad when two licenses from the same organization are incompatible. GPLv2 and Apache.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GCC can honestly only blame itself for its inevitable increasing obsolescence. LLVM only has the attention it has because it can be used as a building block in other compilers. GCC could've made a tool and library which accepts IR, performs optimizations and emits machine code, but the project avoided that for ideological reasons, and as a result created a void in the ecosystem for a project like LLVM.
Yet another reason why I'm not a fan of Richard Stallman. Most of the decisions he made over the past 25 years have been self-defeating and led directly to the decline of the influence of his own movement. It's not that "the GCC project" avoided that for ideological reason, Stallman was personally a veto on that issue for years, and his personal objection led to several people quitting the project for LLVM, with a co…
With the benefit of hindsight, I'm glad that that didn't happen, even though I have mixed feelings about LLVM being permissively licensed.
I was investigating C++-style templates for a hobby language of mine and SFINAE is an important property to make them work in realistic codebases, but leads to exactly this problem. When a compile error occurs, there isn't a single cause, or even a linear chain of causes, but an potentially arbitrarily large tree of them.
For example, it sees a call to foo() and there is a template foo(). It tries to instantiate that but the body of foo() calls bar(). It tries to resolve that and finds a template bar() which it tries to instantiate, and so on.
The compiler is basically searching the entire tree of possible instantiations/overloads and backtracking when it hits dead ends.
Showing that tree as a tree makes a lot of sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet another reason why I'm not a fan of Richard Stallman. Most of the decisions he made over the past 25 years have been self-defeating and led directly to the decline of the influence of his own movement. It's not that "the GCC project" avoided that for ideological reason, Stallman was personally a veto on that issue for years, and his personal objection led to several people quitting the project for LLVM, with a co…
Kind like how GPL 3 makes it infeasible for most companies to use/support free software. At least Stallman gets to feel morally superior though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like GCC or the embedded toolchains are a shining beacon of ISO compliance... and if you mean video game consoles, are any of them using GCC today? Sony and Nintendo are both LLVM and Microsoft is Microsoft
The difference being that vendors forks not compliant with GPL can be legally asked for the changes they haven't sent upstream.
Usability improvement request for this article: don't hijack the browser back button :P
In Firefox, you can prevent this by setting `browser.navigation.requireUserInteraction` via about:config. I've been told that it breaks some stuff, but to date I haven't noticed any downsides
Setting it to what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's an unreasonable lens for viewing his work. Of course he values purity over practicality. That's his entire platform. His decision making process always prioritizes supporting Free Software over proprietary efforts, pragmatism be damned. Expecting Stallman to make life easier for commercial vendors is like expecting PETA to recommend a good foie gras farm. That's not what they do.
>Expecting Stallman to make life easier for commercial vendors is like expecting PETA to recommend a good foie gras farm. That's not what they do. He threw open-source developers under the bus in the process. As a result approximately nobody writes GCC plugins, open source or otherwise.
> It is not our goal to “help Windows users” by making text editing on Windows more convenient. We aim to replace proprietary software, not to enhance it. So why support GNU Emacs on Windows?
> We hope that the experience of using GNU Emacs on Windows will give programmers a taste of freedom, and that this will later inspire them to move to a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. That is the main valid reason to support free applications on nonfree operating systems.
RMS has been exceedingly clear about his views for decades. At this point it's hard to be surprised that he’ll make a pro-Free Software decision every time, without fail. That doesn't mean you have to agree with his decisions, of course! But to be shocked or disappointed by them is a sign of not understanding his platform.