Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eric S. Raymond Calls Out The FSF/GCC On Clang

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by aphirst View Post
    ...I'm very disappointed in the sensationalist spin-like nature of the main article.
    Lol, are you new here?

    Comment


    • #32
      http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/arch...l-sucker-punch

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
        So because he knows the FSF he is not allowed to make comments and objections and try to improve some things without being called an attacker of the FSF?
        Really? You must be kidding.
        Not exactly. He should know what is FSF stance on this and he should be aware the suggestions he made will be seen as something bad. You won't go to MS and tell them to switch to GPL, because it will give them huge development boost. Even if it was true they won't accept such idea.

        Comment


        • #34
          Did someone just said Eric S. Raymond? https://lists.debian.org/debian-deve.../msg01641.html

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Annabel View Post
            Did someone just said Eric S. Raymond? https://lists.debian.org/debian-deve.../msg01641.html
            Wow, the Debian mailing lists sure go way back...

            Comment


            • #36
              ESR is still doing his best

              ESR is still doing his best to replace clarity with confusion, cooperation with conflict and consensus with confrontation. Best to ignore him.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by crymsonpheonix View Post
                I't's not a question of performance, MSVC is lacking in performance and conformance, but it's still in wide use because it's provided with Windows. Work on a project that has to compile on MSVC and you'll understand, no c99 support, many of the optional features of c++ that you actually want are not implemented, etc. LLVM is steered by apple for their use, I know that there are others working on it, but I'm always nervous of a proprietary vendor becoming central in the FOSS chain. That said, I'm not sure I agree with ESR, since GCC has improved massively since LLVM/clang started generating press, and I think that having two large competing projects actually spurs innovation and everything else good. In that regard I'm much more concerned with the GNOME falling out of favor and nothing rising to replace it.
                I'm also a bit worried about GNOME. Not because of the changes that everyone is complaining about though. I think they have made a usable desktop, I'm more worried about its modularity, divercity and robustness when it comes to both the code and the community. The nice thing about most open source projects though is that they are always as big as they need to be, and competition is never a fatal issue.


                I also find ESR's idea a bit dissonant in these Snowden revelation times. In my oppinion open source and its independent peer reviews are the best guarantee against bad influence

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by devius View Post
                  Lol, are you new here?
                  No, but I do remember a few years ago when the majority of Phoronix articles were either diverse technical benchmarks; or deliberate, well thought-out commentary and aggregation of material related to `hot` current topics. Not "some guy said something shit-stirring on a mailing list". Maybe my spectacles are rose-tinted.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by endman View Post
                    Eric S Raymond is well known to be a traitor of Freedom in software.

                    His advocacy on the so called "unix philosophy" has hold Linux in certain areas. RMS once said he is more harm then good to the FOSS community.

                    Theres no shortage of complete lunatic idiots fucking up the open source community. Most of them are the people who fanatically complain about commercialized products.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                      That's funny, because it's used probably in every Linux distribution. Clang can't even compile Linux kernel yet and GCC is faster and more feature rich. I'd like to hear about those "technical" merits you're talking about. Clang is nice, but it's still behind GCC.
                      Clang can't compile Linux because of all the GCC extensions built right into the Kernel, though I believe there's a branch that Clang can compile. As for performance, OpenMP support will likely drop within the year, and I'd suspect GCC will fall behind there as well.

                      GCC is a relic, end story.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                        GCC is a relic, end story.
                        Yes, the undisputed #1 free compiler on the planet, which supports more platforms than most compilers combined and which is used to build every single Linux and Android system out there, and which still generates the fastest code among free compilers -- is a relic.

                        Phoronix is full of genius gems like this one.

                        I welcome the healthy competition brought by Clang, and think that having choice among free compilers is a great thing. The only thing I hope does NOT happen, is for LLVM to kill GCC. As long as the two coexist, I support and like LLVM.

                        Killing GCC would kill Free Software, period. GCC is the most important FS project ever conceived, and it must survive. Hopefully, with some friendly competition, it will improve in the process.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I was prepared to accept GCC as having its place in the compiler world in the face of moving to clang personally.

                          That is, until they obnoxiously deprecated IRIX MIPS support in 4.9.

                          GCC's tremendous multiplatform support is one of its greatest assets. The destruction of this has eliminated my desire to bother with it. Gcc still has a place in my world, but that is only to act as a counterbalance to an LLVM monoculture and drive forward innovation.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                            Clang can't compile Linux because of all the GCC extensions built right into the Kernel, though I believe there's a branch that Clang can compile. As for performance, OpenMP support will likely drop within the year, and I'd suspect GCC will fall behind there as well.

                            GCC is a relic, end story.
                            That's even more funny, because GCC supports more architectures, it's more mature and complete. It's faster even in non OpenMP benchmarks. It's far from being a relic.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                              GCC is a relic, end story.
                              Some people seem to think that if software is more than a few years old and works, then it must be a relic, legacy, ancient boring stuff that must be replaced.

                              This results in Perl being replaced by PHP being replaced with Ruby on Rails, in turn being replaced with Node.js, which will shortly be old and boring also.

                              Some people find it boring if their software works too reliably and isn't updated for critical bug fixes every other week.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                GCC is definitely good, but sometimes CLANG/LLVM produces better code for me...

                                Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                                That's even more funny, because GCC supports more architectures, it's more mature and complete. It's faster even in non OpenMP benchmarks. It's far from being a relic.
                                My application is not 'typical', but is some carefully crafted DSP code (optimized for GCC, NOT CLANG), and does some fancy Audio/DSP processing (FIR-type processing/very innovative level detection/signal processing/etc.) The latest GCC-current generated code runs through a generic piece of audio (processing it) in 1m 30secs or more, while the latest working CLANG/LLVM-current code takes approx. 1m 5secs or so. IT IS GCC optimized, not LLVM optimized code.
                                THIS IS NOT A CONTROLLED TEST, but shows that CLANG/LLVM does work well. Frankly, I like both compilers, and the kind of license for the compiler itself is of little worry to me. I worry more about the runtime or that the compiler is not being developed/updated. WRT my own interest, I find that GCC is generally slightly better only because it has been around for decades, and LLVM/CLANG is perhaps just a bit more than a decade old -- and not really all that great until the last 5yrs. I LOVE the idea of the very divergent architectures, and gives quite a bit of benefit when LLVM or GCC don't have a specific feature, but the other does.

                                In general, I have found that when CLANG/LLVM works well, it does really produce good code. When it misses the mark, it usually does so about the same amount that GCC missed the mark on my own (specific) program.
                                I think that general criticism of each of those compilers is based upon emotionalism of one kind or another, but there are LOTS of specific criticisms that can be used beneficially by both teams and by the user base.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X