Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defending GCC considered futile

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 209 posts

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#191

Post by bmuk »

I tend to agree with RMS, at least on his philosophy of free software. That being said, I don't think adding LLDB support to emacs is a bad thing, and I don't think the rise of clang/LLVM will be a big hit to free software.

As long as there are people who care about freedom, people will maintain GCC. Even if the worst case happens, and there is extreme fragmentation of proprietary patch-sets to LLVM, we can always still use GCC, or even still use the free parts of LLVM/clang.

While there is some issue with fragmentation of the developer community, I see this as a non-issue. These things generally work themselves out through the natural ebb and flow of chaotic systems (just like the economy is largely self-regulating).

We can always still use GCC. I don't really see where the issue is, am I missing something?

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#194

Post by glesica »

dragonwriter wrote: post #145
glesica wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But RMS has never really been pragmatic in the sense I think you mean here. RMS is the spiritual leader, other people have always done a lot of the implementation. When the principles collide with the ability to do some specific thing, RMS has pretty much always come down on the side of the principles. This is nothing new. Just because you disagree with some of the results of his principles, probably because you're f…

> But RMS has never really been pragmatic in the sense I think you mean here. I didn't use "pragmatic" as an adjective describing RMS or a role RMS might be in at all, so I'm not really sure what you are saying. RMS is, and has for a long time been, acting in the role that I stated that the "he doesn't know enough anymore" [about the way working developers now actually build software] claim is relevant to his suitabi…

But it doesn't matter how developers build software today. When RMS started, software developers used (largely) closed IDEs, operating systems, compilers, etc. His principles are an entirely separate matter and he has stated over and over and over again that he doesn't care if his principles are inconvenient or if adherence to his principles causes technology to advance at a slower rate or software to be less useful. So his knowledge of "modern" software development really doesn't matter.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#195

Post by dragonwriter »

glesica wrote: post #194
dragonwriter wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But RMS has never really been pragmatic in the sense I think you mean here. I didn't use "pragmatic" as an adjective describing RMS or a role RMS might be in at all, so I'm not really sure what you are saying. RMS is, and has for a long time been, acting in the role that I stated that the "he doesn't know enough anymore" [about the way working developers now actually build software] claim is relevant to his suitabi…

But it doesn't matter how developers build software today. When RMS started, software developers used (largely) closed IDEs, operating systems, compilers, etc. His principles are an entirely separate matter and he has stated over and over and over again that he doesn't care if his principles are inconvenient or if adherence to his principles causes technology to advance at a slower rate or software to be less useful.…

> But it doesn't matter how developers build software today.

It does if you are trying to make choices about how to use management of which features to include or exclude in copyleft software targeted at software developers as a mechanism to promote the goals of an ideology with a specific view of software freedom.

> His principles are an entirely separate matter and he has stated over and over and over again that he doesn't care if his principles are inconvenient or if adherence to his principles causes technology to advance at a slower rate

But he presumably cares about whether his decisions result in a world that reflects his principles less rather than one that reflects his principles more. And that's where knowledge of the present pragmatics are important when it comes to tactical choices to advance his ideology.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#196

Post by Arelius »

angersock wrote: post #149
NickPollard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can only speak for yourself. Lots of game developers, including myself, do not commonly use heavyweight IDEs.

1. Are you a professional--i.e., making rent off of it--game developer? 2. Are you developing for consoles or PCs, or for some other platform? 3. Do you program in a language that benefits from IDEs, specifically C, C++, C#, or Java?

Speaking for myself.

1. yes 2. yes 3. yes

Now, while I am forced to use Visual Studio as a build system and for it's integrated debugger. I too, generally use other tools for actual development. And I'd love if I didn't have to use VS for it's debugger either.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#197

Post by maxlybbert »

zanny wrote: post #171
maxlybbert wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common belief. It is, I believe, the reason Stallman wrote the GPL and the reason Torvalds continues to use the GPL 2. But Eric Raymond convinced me that it's irrelevant ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=928 ): "If we live in 'Type A' a universe where closed source is more efficient, markets will eventually punish people who take closed source code open. Markets will correspondingly reward people who take open so…

I disagree with both premises, because software is not a free market. It exists in the framing context of IP and copyright, unnatural societal constructs with varying reasons for existing. But they do exist. It is not a universal truth whether or not proprietary or free software makes sense. In a world without copyright, the mechanisms of software profiteering and the utility of open or closed source radically change…

I'll concede that a universe could exist where software isn't covered by copyright or any similar law. I don't see how the GPL would be any more useful in that universe than in the two that Raymond considered.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#198

Post by angersock »

Arelius wrote: post #196
angersock wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Are you a professional--i.e., making rent off of it--game developer? 2. Are you developing for consoles or PCs, or for some other platform? 3. Do you program in a language that benefits from IDEs, specifically C, C++, C#, or Java?

Speaking for myself. 1. yes 2. yes 3. yes Now, while I am forced to use Visual Studio as a build system and for it's integrated debugger. I too, generally use other tools for actual development. And I'd love if I didn't have to use VS for it's debugger either.

I'm genuinely curious--what problems have you had with the VS debugger? It's generally quite a bit nicer than the alternatives I've used.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#199

Post by 59nadir »

dragonwriter wrote: post #85
weenie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of necessity and as a means to an end, because nobody else sharing his philosophy is willing to do it.

> Out of necessity and as a means to an end, because nobody else sharing his philosophy is willing to do it. I think that's a pretty striking description of failure in promoting an ideology.

> I think that's a pretty striking description of failure in promoting an ideology.

Are you actually saying you think the FSF have failed?

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#200

Post by 59nadir »

coldtea wrote: post #25
rayiner wrote: post #18

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.

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?

> ... Windows C++ developers (most of which use VS) ...

There is no option for anything else on Windows, though. The shell isn't anywhere near as prevalent and you have no other go-to method at all. The whole ecosystem is point & click, which means you'll get nothing but headaches from trying to use a more UNIX-style toolchain in lieu of an IDE.

It's not exactly a point for IDEs when, even if you wanted to, it'd be a hassle to try to integrate another type of workflow into an OS that clearly is not made for it.

Post reply on HN