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

201–209 of 209 posts

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#201

Post by eli_gottlieb »

maxlybbert wrote: post #121
zanny wrote: post #11

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…

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…

Instead, we live in a Type C universe, where the Efficient Market Hypothesis is untrue and real people regularly behave more in accordance with personal beliefs and ideologies than in accordance with the imperative to increase wealth by all means possible.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#202

Post by jeremiep »

angersock wrote: post #198
Arelius wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It can only run from inside the IDE and requires extensive use of the mouse and GUIs. This is wasting precious screen space and the mouse is often slower than just typing and composing commands.

Also, since everything is tightly integrated, when something crashes the whole goes down. This can be frustrating when your project takes almost a full minute to load in VS (it's mostly VisualAssistX being busy parsing files and the perforce plugin syncing up).

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#203

Post by dragonwriter »

59nadir wrote: post #199
dragonwriter wrote: post #85

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. 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?

> Are you actually saying you think the FSF have failed?

I think the FSF has failed in making popular RMS's extremist exclusionary ideology which sees the eradication of non-Free software as a moral imperative, even at the cost of technological progress and of the utility of Free software for its technical, rather than ideological, functions.

I think the FSF has succeeded in using copyleft licensing to create a critical mass of Free Software which established well the pragmatic case for Free software, and -- because the pragmatic case for Free software has been so well made -- has demonstrated (entirely unintentionally) the conflict between (larger, AFAICT) group those whose goal is increased availability, utility, attractiveness, and use of Free software and the (smaller, again AFAICT) group whose goal is RMS's one of eradication of non-Free software and avoidance of Free software utility in producing/generating non-Free software.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#204

Post by DannyBee »

throwaway90999 wrote: post #189
DannyBee wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You are certainly aware that the vast majority of code is under strict restrictions and will be leveraged for competitive/controlling purposes rather than being shared. Employees wishing to freely contribute code in these domains will have their requests denied. " ?????? None of this is true. I mean, literally none of this. I don't even know where to begin.

This isn't a complicated statement. Why are you struggling with it? Google does not open source the VAST majority of their code -- it remains tightly restricted. Surely agree this is an accurate statement?

Because it's an incredibly vague statement that is open to many interpretations?

As written, actually, i don't agree with it.

Google has open sourced > 100 million lines of source code, depending on how you count.

I can't tell you what percent this is, but it is quite significant

It is the vast majority of a number of products, and not the vast majority of a number of other products.

In fact, for some subsidiaries, all of the code is open source. For some, it isn't.

So your statement depends on a lot - who are you counting, what is "their code" (Code we've written, code we've modified, or code we use), etc

If you make a detailed enough statement, i'd probably agree. But as written, there are plenty of cases where google open sources the vast majority of it's code.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#205

Post by throwaway90999 »

DannyBee wrote: post #204
throwaway90999 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a complicated statement. Why are you struggling with it? Google does not open source the VAST majority of their code -- it remains tightly restricted. Surely agree this is an accurate statement?

Because it's an incredibly vague statement that is open to many interpretations? As written, actually, i don't agree with it. Google has open sourced > 100 million lines of source code, depending on how you count. I can't tell you what percent this is, but it is quite significant It is the vast majority of a number of products, and not the vast majority of a number of other products. In fact, for some subsidiaries, a…

If you insist on continuing to be disingenuous we can simply end the conversation.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#206

Post by maxlybbert »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #201
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…

Instead, we live in a Type C universe, where the Efficient Market Hypothesis is untrue and real people regularly behave more in accordance with personal beliefs and ideologies than in accordance with the imperative to increase wealth by all means possible.

Although he didn't say so, Raymond's thought analysis is based on the development of software in a commercial or professional setting. The decision of whether to release personal projects as open source is a different discussion altogether.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#207

Post by maxlybbert »

maxlybbert wrote: post #206
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead, we live in a Type C universe, where the Efficient Market Hypothesis is untrue and real people regularly behave more in accordance with personal beliefs and ideologies than in accordance with the imperative to increase wealth by all means possible.

Although he didn't say so, Raymond's thought analysis is based on the development of software in a commercial or professional setting. The decision of whether to release personal projects as open source is a different discussion altogether.

Oops: "thought experiment" or "analysis" not a silly mash of the two.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#208

Post by NickPollard »

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?

1. Currently No, but for 5 years, yes. Now only indie in my spare time.

2. I was primarily developing for consoles (PS3, X360 mostly), with some PC work. Now primarily PC and Mobile.

3. Over 70% C or C++. In industry (AAA Console) I was probably 90% C++.

Lots of people do use IDEs in the industry, but lots of people also don't. It's a choice.

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

#209

Post by glesica »

dragonwriter wrote: post #195
glesica wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

No, not if it means compromising the principles themselves. That's the beauty of RMS, he really isn't pragmatic. He isn't willing to compromise, at all, ever. And that's why he is so important, because he represents an unwavering ideal, you don't have to worry about him moving the goal posts, if you hitch yourself to RMS and let out 100 feet of rope, you know that you will always be 100 feet from free software purity.

Post reply on HN