71–80 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it? http://imagine-rt.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/c-compiler-benchmar...
Yes it does. Did you read my links? Small benchmarks can go either way, but for large codebase (especially C++) inliner is more important than just about anything else. So GCC wins, because it has better inliner.
Anecdotal, but I've seen similar improvements over g++ in my code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it? http://imagine-rt.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/c-compiler-benchmar...
Yes it does. Did you read my links? Small benchmarks can go either way, but for large codebase (especially C++) inliner is more important than just about anything else. So GCC wins, because it has better inliner.
Anecdotal, but I've seen similar improvements over g++ in my code.
I wonder if any of the big distros will start compiling with CLANG instead of GCC?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm always confused by this stance. It presupposes that big companies like Apple and Google will at some point become bad actors in the opensource world. (They both contribute huge amounts of code). Even Microsoft is starting to open up their codebase with the release of huge parts of the .NET ecosystem. Frankly, I want the big boys on my side when it comes to opensource code. I want them to use the code I write. Usu…
> Am I missing something, or is this fear of corporations totally unjustified? Sun Microsystems basically grabbed BSD development by hiring up a lot of good people and running with it. It took a while for the various free BSD's to come into their own. Basically, with "bsd licensed" software, if a big company hired up all the developers, they could take it proprietary and out-compete fork efforts. I don't think it hap…
The AT&T lawsuit and the end of DARPA BSD funding and that research group at UCB didn't have a lot to do with that? That was several years after Sun got in bed with AT&T and announced that BSD based SunOS was doomed.
I don't know, but I wonder.
ESR seems a bit over the line with this mail, but what never ceases to amaze me is how RMS is disconnected with the present technology: >From its name, I guess that LLDB is a noncopylefted debugger and that some might intend it to replace GDB. But I don't know if that is so. This is just one of many, in the recent arguments he has stated several times that he doesn't understand how automated code refactoring works, h…
It's not just that his knowledge is outdated, it's also that his philosophical principles will always take precedence over everything else, which includes sound and/or pragmatic technological decisions. I'm not fond of esr in general but he's spot on with this post.
To be fair to RMS he has tried to consider opposing views in the past when he can see and understand the need behind the proposition.
In this case the problem is that RMS doesn't know enough C++/Java/C#-style OO programming, and can't understand why you would need refactoring tools to rename a method, because in his C-style world a search and replace should be sufficient.
And because he doesn't see the need himself, he wont consider it a valid use-case which GNU/GCC/Emacs needs to support.
This already has lead to chilling effects: People have stopped working on adding GCC-based support for auto-completion and similar functionality. RMS may be stubborn, but he's not stupid: He sees adding the proposed LLDB/LLVM-based functionality as a direct consequence of this, and bypassing his "authoriity" on the GCC-issue and thus an "attack" on GCC and the goals of GNU/FCC itself.
In my mind, he is obviously right that people are side-stepping his judgement, but he is wrong that this is an attack on free software: People just want to make Emacs better, and he is vigorously fighting them to make it not happen.
And now we have RMS fighting to artificially limit free software, in his mind to preserve it. I'm not sure how long this has been going on now... A decade?
To me forking core GNU projects to leave RMS out just in order to get things done is increasingly looking like the only option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about a C compiler and debugger. Lots of very technically knowledgable people shun IDEs and automated refactoring in that space.
Only in the UNIX world. In the game development world, embedded systems and desktops we like our IDEs.
The supplied IDE for development is Emacs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that many. Except if Windows C++ developers (most of which use VS) don't qualify as "technically knowledgable people". And who is doing the judging?
There are lots of people who are not Windows C++ developers. Just because there are lots of people who DO use IDEs, doesn't mean there aren't lots of people who don't. Don't take his point so personally - he's just saying RMS ignorance is not that unusual.
I take his phrase as to mean that those people are justified or the majority.
That is, the phrase "lots of very technically knowledgable shun IDEs and automated refactoring" seems to me to imply that technically knowledgable people do/should shun IDEs and automated refactoring in general.
But, as we all know, technically knowledgable people fall in both camps (pro and against IDEs).
So this was a discussion in /r/linux last week about LLVM and GCC et al, so I'm just reposting my statements on why a world where GCC is irrelevant is bad: It takes little effort on Apples or Googles or Microsofts part to take advantage of an LLVM dominated world to close off their own changes to it and try to force developers to use their own proprietary LLVM distributions on their own operating systems. It stops ev…
Yet, PostgreSQL survives, and is doing well. Ditto for Apache. That is enough evidence that there's something wrong with the usual modeling... Ok, maybe not enough evidence for you to feel secure on the viability of big non copyleft licensed software, but you should at least take it into account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm always confused by this stance. It presupposes that big companies like Apple and Google will at some point become bad actors in the opensource world. (They both contribute huge amounts of code). Even Microsoft is starting to open up their codebase with the release of huge parts of the .NET ecosystem. Frankly, I want the big boys on my side when it comes to opensource code. I want them to use the code I write. Usu…
Microsoft is opening their codebase because they've been crushed by the enormous efforts of open source. This concession was hard won over the course of decades. Apple and Google do not contribute code freely, nor do they contribute a significant amount of their code. The contributions are limited to areas in which an advantage exists. One only has to look at the machinations present in other development platforms to…
As opposed to their own ineptitude (e.g. Vista and Windows 8) or the changing of the guard from original founders?
I'm certain open source played a role, but I suspect a secondary one. Heck, if post XP Windows didn't suck so much, I and my parents (who nowadays run what I build them) would be using it instead of Linux for our desktops.