Tweet
Oh wait, they actually wrote most of it
-
No, hell no, and no. -
Apple knows that with open source they have outside contributors (And don't have to waste X much money on devs).
They reason they want to do it is because they're spending so much money on maintaining GCC ports, that they figured it'd be easier just to do that. That's why pretty much the entire project goal is portability, with minor speed goals and stuff.
I have no problems whatsoever with using it. In fact, TBH I'd rather use it than some crackpot named Richard Stallman's stuff (He thinks big brother is watching him at all times).Comment
-
That "crackpot" wrote the GCC compiler, which Apple is spending money porting.
Good luck not using GCC.
Some people really lack a sense of perspective...Comment
-
-
I didn't say I didn't think he was talented, nor do I not thank him for his work. Actually, I think I did say pretty much that he wasn't talented.., and I take that back (Just woke up, shiiiit. Didn't mean to say it that way).Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
But he hasn't had much to do with GCC development in a long long time (AFAIK), and has suggested a lot of preposterous things (AKA lost his mind).
GCC was fantastic during it's hayday..but unless there's a major change it's going to die.Comment
-
True, Stallman is not actively developing much these days, and that's also good -- new people, fresh ideas, it's healthy for a software ecosystem.
But we can't forget that he is, more than probably anyone else, to thank that we have all the open source goodness that we do today.
When I started using Linux, I was a pragmatist, who wanted to tinker, and get decent software for free. I thought that RMS was a bit out there. The more I've been using Free Software (it's been over 10 years now), the more I appreciate him and his point of view. The man is right most of the time, even if it is not practical or comfortable to accept it.Comment
-
While he's right when it comes to some of the stuff he says (For the users end, proprietary software generally isn't good). But he also has to consider the fact that businesses need to make money.Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
He tends to bring his software views outside of software (i.e. since Linux worked communism works...no, Linux has been made by IIRC > 90% paid devs, and it's duplicateable..bread isn't).
I do not agree with pretty much anything he says anywhere that's pretty much why I don't like him. I like Linus a lot more than RMS, although I don't agree with lashing out at devs who contribute their time (Talking about specific ones), although I can't say I blame him for doing it for over 10 years, almost 20.
Now, Andrew Morton, I like the dude, and Tanenbaum. Why? Because, Morton's an expert witness for IBM against SCO.
/endofftopic..
GCC is awefully bloated. Any changes that want to happen tend to be rejected. Same with the Linux kernel. All good things must come to an end..
TBH with modern hardware I think a microkernel or a hybrid kernel would help keep things not so bloated, but that's just me (There's a LOT of room for improvising with micro/hybrid kernels).Comment
-
LLVM has made impressive progress, but it's not even close to obsoleting GCC. There's a lot more to GCC than being an x86 system compiler.Originally posted by NoEffex View PostComment
-
That's true. But, as an x86* compiler, it's becoming less and less desired. I MUCH more enjoy compiling with clang (Though with C++ it sucksOriginally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
) because for larger projects it's much much much quicker and it provides some speed improvements.
Comment
-
Without Stallman, these developers would still be working on Solaris, AIX, NetWare and the like and you'd be paying 1000$ per licence to run it on your $20,000 box.Linux has been made by IIRC > 90% paid devs
There would be no Linux as we know it.Comment
Comment