Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Next time check your facts. A lot of BSD people are employed by Apple. THEY brought BSD attitude into Apple.
    And as a result, BSD development is heavily dominated by Apple nowadays. What exactly is your argument?

    If you don't like “Apple leftovers”, stop using CUPS, WebKit, etc. under Linux.
    I don't use WebKit (anymore), but I fail to see how that is relevant. It started as a KDE project and is only open today thanks to the LGPL. Otherwise, who knows, WebKit probably would have been as open as iTunes.

    CUPS is actually nice.
    Last edited by pingufunkybeat; 05-14-2012, 09:58 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
      Maybe, they were never with Linux, because Linux hates BSD. I also don't see how BSD is with Microsoft. Apple and Microsoft love BSD, because of license.
      No, Linux didn't hate BSD, but BSD hated Linux since the beginning - BSD is much older than Linux - a new player comes and kicks BSD ass and that's the reason to hate it. That's true what you said about Apple and Microsoft, but I don't understand why BSD folks love them too?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        They were never with Linux, but with Microsoft and Apple. MS and Apple hate Linux, but they love BSD, because it can't compete in any term.
        No, Linux didn't hate BSD, but BSD hated Linux since the beginning - BSD is much older than Linux - a new player comes and kicks BSD ass and that's the reason to hate it. That's true what you said about Apple and Microsoft, but I don't understand why BSD folks love them too?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by milkylainen View Post
          LLVM/Clang is:
          * still _MUCH_ slower than GCC.
          It is not a "toy" because of the speed of the binaries it generates. It has a long way to go. If every single actively developped program had to be considered as a toy, I'm pretty sure a lot of developers would kill themselves of despair.
          BTW, who are you to criticize the performance of LLVM/Clang ? Have you ever used it ? Do you program ? As a developper I'll tell you what : this piece of software produces incredibly helpful warning messages, and is able to do static analysis (something that GCC is unable to do).

          Originally posted by milkylainen View Post
          * Does not compile a lot of code correctly (even without specific GCC extensions).
          I'm interested in this part. Have you a source to provide ?
          Note that GCC is about as concerned as LLVM/Clang about the poorness of the generated code. For example, this guy called "Linus Torvalds" has long been complaining about the output of GCC in common situations

          I can't help thinking that people who criticize LLVM/Clang using so stupid arguments are just Gentoo ricer that put the emphasis on a few milliseconds in some critical benchmarks rather than on the robustness of the compiler.

          Comment


          • #35
            So you think that Clang is, at this moment, the more robust compiler of the two?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              No, Linux didn't hate BSD, but BSD hated Linux since the beginning - BSD is much older than Linux - a new player comes and kicks BSD ass and that's the reason to hate it. That's true what you said about Apple and Microsoft, but I don't understand why BSD folks love them too?
              Kicking ass, because of licensing problems is not really friendly.
              As Awesomeness already said many FreeBSD developers are Apple employees.
              BSD folks love Microsoft? As far as I know Linux accepted Microsoft's code into kernel and Ubuntu has Mono installed by default.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                So you think that Clang is, at this moment, the more robust compiler of the two?
                Maybe "robust" isn't the most appropriate word here. It is at least the most maintenable, and that will become very important as compilers become more and more sophisticated.
                Whereas GCC is a big block of code that only some elites can work on and improve, Clang depends upon LLVM, which is a common code generator that can be used by any compiler. The separation of the projects allows for a greatly reduced code base, and less complexity overall.

                We can draw a parallel with the Linux kernel. As written here :

                Torvalds recently stated that Linux has become "too complex" and he was concerned that developers would not be able to find their way through the software anymore. He complained that even subsystems have become very complex and he told the publication that he is "afraid of the day" when there will be an error that "cannot be evaluated anymore."
                If this phenomenon comes to happen even on subsystems of the Linux kernel, why wouldn't it happen on the 1,842,457 LoC of GCC too (generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount') ?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Merkil View Post
                  It is not a "toy" because of the speed of the binaries it generates.
                  True, it's no more a toy than GCC is.

                  Originally posted by Merkil View Post
                  Do you program ? As a developper I'll tell you what : this piece of software produces incredibly helpful warning messages, and is able to do static analysis (something that GCC is unable to do).
                  That's disingenious, the Google dev didn't say GCC is unable to do static analysis, simply that Clang/LLVM was a better fit for their implementation. Clang is hardly the worlds first static analyser, that said it's great to have another option but it's not as if we couldn't code before Clang offered one.

                  Originally posted by Merkil View Post
                  Note that GCC is about as concerned as LLVM/Clang about the poorness of the generated code. For example, this guy called "Linus Torvalds" has long been complaining about the output of GCC in common situations
                  Linus certainly complains when he encounters compiler bugs (and things he percieves as bugs) but much of the code they do in the kernel is not 'common', and bugs which indeed are bugs get fixed. Clang/LLVM doesn't even compile the kernel, imagine the swearing from Linus should he use it. And before you complain about GCC compiler extensions know that most of the extensions used by the Linux kernel were added at the request of the kernel devs and LLVM has it's own exclusive extensions aswell.

                  There are lots of people out there who just can't look past the licence, the licence only matters when it starts to have a practical impact on you as a user. For those of us (the vast majority) simply using GCC and LLVM/Clang as tools it currently has no impact at all, so can we just stop judging them as that of BSD or GPL and instead appreciate their respective qualities.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Personally, I try to kill anything associated with Apple with fire.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by fuzz View Post
                      Personally, I try to kill anything associated with Apple with fire.
                      Hear, hear!

                      I have nothing against FreeBSD or CLang LLVM. But it infuriates me to know that wealthy companies like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and Sony take BSD licensed software and incorporate it into their products, and then give comparatively nothing back to the community. Red Hat spends a comparatively huge amount of its annual spending on writing software that it releases under free licenses - usually the GPL. Apple has contributed a lot to some BSD projects, but as a percentage of their revenue it's rounding error.

                      The FreeBSD community and everyone that uses a BSD license has every right to choose that license, and I bear them no ill will. But I am frustrated that companies that could make free software far better for everyone choose not to do so, and for that reason I'll always prefer the GPL.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
                        Hear, hear!

                        I have nothing against FreeBSD or CLang LLVM. But it infuriates me to know that wealthy companies like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and Sony take BSD licensed software and incorporate it into their products, and then give comparatively nothing back to the community. Red Hat spends a comparatively huge amount of its annual spending on writing software that it releases under free licenses - usually the GPL. Apple has contributed a lot to some BSD projects, but as a percentage of their revenue it's rounding error.

                        The FreeBSD community and everyone that uses a BSD license has every right to choose that license, and I bear them no ill will. But I am frustrated that companies that could make free software far better for everyone choose not to do so, and for that reason I'll always prefer the GPL.
                        Have you participated in development of any of BSD-licensed software that have been take in by companies? If not, why are you frustrated if developers are willing to license it under BSDL knowing all consequences?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                          And as a result, BSD development is heavily dominated by Apple nowadays. What exactly is your argument?
                          I don't use WebKit (anymore), but I fail to see how that is relevant. It started as a KDE project and is only open today thanks to the LGPL. Otherwise, who knows, WebKit probably would have been as open as iTunes.

                          CUPS is actually nice.
                          LOL! Make up your mind! First you claim that BSD development is dominated by Apple, then you claim that WebKit would not be open if its origin wasn't LGPLed.
                          So why does Apple “dominate” with BSD licensed contributions on one hand but would close WebKit if it had the chance? Clang could easily be a closed source front-end to LLVM if Apple wanted. Clang is a contribution by Apple to LLVM which, btw, started as a University of Illinois project. Your logic does not make any sense at all.
                          Apple could completely close off Clang, create a proprietary fork of LLVM, etc.
                          WebKit's current JavaScript engine was completely developed in-house at Apple and thanks to the first L in LGPL Apple would have no need to open source it. Apple holds all rights to CUPS and could close it at any time. Apple was never ever obligated to Apache/BSD-license OpenBSM, libdispatch, WebKit's JavaScript Core, Clang, etc.

                          PS: Apple contributed with a full-time programmer to Mozilla development for several years: Even more Apple leftovers to avoid for you.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post
                            Yes, you're stupid.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                              Kicking ass, because of licensing problems is not really friendly.
                              As Awesomeness already said many FreeBSD developers are Apple employees.
                              BSD folks love Microsoft? As far as I know Linux accepted Microsoft's code into kernel and Ubuntu has Mono installed by default.
                              Not just because licensing (but this is very important), but also about manpower and support. That's true and they're controlled by Apple which is bad. I met with this many times when comes to FreeBSD users, but OpenBSD folks probably doesn't count - they seem to be anti proprietary which is good. There's a nice trick with MS code in the Linux kernel. Someone else described this before. Thanks to this MS has to support Linux and if they say Linux sucks they're hypocrites, because they now support Linux and write its code. Afaik MS code was terrible and they had to clean it, too. They rather felt bad. Most of the Linux community didn't like mono to be included and the newest Ubuntu is mono free.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                First off, Apple didn't create CUPS, CUPS was the backbone of *nix printing way before Apple bought it because they needed a wide printing solution. Now CUPS was GPL, right after Apple bought it they changed the licencing to excempt themselves from the GPL so that they (but noone else) could use/modify CUPS in a proprietary manner.

                                As for webkit, they forked it off KHTML and they certainly put alot of work into it but so has MANY other contributors, and unlike the other contributors Apple has been dragging their feet when it comes to releasing their source changes and not doing so until they recieved several complaints.

                                In short, I have no trust whatsoever in Apple when it comes to their open source endeavours, luckily LLVM in particular is recieveing alot of support from outside Apple, some from big corporations who could pick up the gauntlet once Apple decides that they have no need for further open collaboration.

                                Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                                PS: Apple contributed with a full-time programmer to Mozilla development for several years: Even more Apple leftovers to avoid for you.
                                This surprised me, who?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X