Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 154

Thread: C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    The reason they can't put it in the garage for two years is because so much open source infrastructure depends on it, not only to exist as it is now with bug fixes, but to progress with cpu architecture support, language support, standards support, platform support etc.
    Pardon me for saying, but its not like SW development is going to screech to a halt if C++1x support isn't added for a few months.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    You mean the one that still isn't fully working after like, a year? RADEON_LLVM?
    Nice try, but no. If you want to complain about RADEON_LLVM, then AMD/Mesa driver guys are the ones to go to.

    Btw even if not ready yet, isn't it cool to have a compiler with GPU back-ends? I hope INTEL will follow AMD here.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeardedGNUFreak View Post
    It shouldn't surprise anyone that the viral GPL license us is dying and free BSD style licenses are rapidly on the rise.

    The GPL has become synonymous with failure:

    * GPL Mozilla Firefox got taken out by BSD licensed Chrome

    * GPL licensed Linux cellphone OSes got take out by BSD licensed Android

    * GPL licensed GCC has been made into a joke compared to the modern Clang/LLVM toolchain.

    It is hilarious to see the incompetent GCC clowns shitting themselves as Clang/LLVM has exploded in use and development. Funny how now that developers and companies are free of the garbage GPL that there has been an explosion in code sharing and massive leaps forward in compiler development with Clang/LLVM.
    Good joke! GPL is synonymous of success and BSD is a synonymous of big failure. BSD was in the game till GPL Linux has come. Linux killed BSD, but some necromancers keep this shit undead. Android isn't BSD, so get your facts straight. Mozilla isn't GPL... Clang/LLVM is a toy compared to GCC which compiles much more software for much more architectures and which is faster. Go home, because BSD is meaningless.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Good joke! GPL is synonymous of success and BSD is a synonymous of big failure. BSD was in the game till GPL Linux has come. Linux killed BSD, but some necromancers keep this shit undead. Android isn't BSD, so get your facts straight. Mozilla isn't GPL... Clang/LLVM is a toy compared to GCC which compiles much more software for much more architectures and which is faster. Go home, because BSD is meaningless.
    GPL use is decreasing, Apache, MIT, and BSD are increasing. http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Good joke! GPL is synonymous of success and BSD is a synonymous of big failure. BSD was in the game till GPL Linux has come. Linux killed BSD, but some necromancers keep this shit undead. Android isn't BSD, so get your facts straight. Mozilla isn't GPL... Clang/LLVM is a toy compared to GCC which compiles much more software for much more architectures and which is faster. Go home, because BSD is meaningless.
    May I point out that quite some embedded devices use BSD (I worked on quite some), of most of them you'll just never realize. Also, since OSX is a "BSD" by heart, I wouldn't really dare to call it a failure. It has a larger desktop market share than linux (servers offc is another thing). And if you're talking about licenses, I think GPLv3 was a major mistake, and a huge turnoff for a lot of developers. There is a reason Linus refuses to adopt GPLv3 for the kernel, and I completely share his point of view.

    And if you're talking compilers, clang is in a lot of areas far superior to GCC, certainly from the point of view of a developer. Clang is just a joy to work with. A lot faster compiles, certainly when using template code, and actual meaningful errors which most of the time point to exactly the right problem. Not 4 pages of meaningless spaghetti errors for 1 forgotten ";" in old template code you haven't changed in months, which GCC compiled just fine just because you didn't use that specific specialization anywhere until then. I've been there, happy hunting if you're in that situation. I can only recommend setting the CC environment variable to "clang" and CXX to "clang++" in a case like that, it'll save you some time. It errors catches any template code, used or not, unlike GCC.
    In fact, clang right now is my default compiler in my development environment. And while clang's 'scan-build' static analyzer isn't as far as I hoped, it does some things well and is improved every release. Something like this is doesn't even exist in the gcc tool-chain. If more and more developers discover what day-to-day advantages clang has over GCC, it will get used more and more, at the expense of GCC.

    GCC still has an edge over clang regarding optimizations and platforms it compiles on/for, but LLVM is a lot more flexible, and has a cleaner code-base (which is normal for such a young project). Don't ridicule clang, because it WILL catch up, and this will happen faster than most people expect.

    So GPL winning? As long as developers stand behind it, and I'm afraid it's going to lose ground here.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Good joke! GPL is synonymous of success and BSD is a synonymous of big failure. BSD was in the game till GPL Linux has come. Linux killed BSD, but some necromancers keep this shit undead. Android isn't BSD, so get your facts straight. Mozilla isn't GPL... Clang/LLVM is a toy compared to GCC which compiles much more software for much more architectures and which is faster. Go home, because BSD is meaningless.
    May I point out that quite some embedded devices use BSD (I worked on quite some), of most of them you'll just never realize. Also, since OSX is a "BSD" by heart, I wouldn't really dare to call it a failure. It has a larger desktop market share than linux (servers offc is another thing). And if you're talking about licenses, I think GPLv3 was a major mistake, and a huge turnoff for a lot of developers. There is a reason Linus refuses to adopt GPLv3 for the kernel, and I completely share his point of view.

    And if you're talking compilers, clang is in a lot of areas far superior to GCC, certainly from the point of view of a developer. It is just a joy to work with. A lot faster compile-times, certainly when using template code, and actual meaningful errors which most of the time point to exactly the right problem. No 4 pages of meaningless spaghetti errors for 1 forgotten ";" in old template code you haven't changed in months, which GCC compiled just fine just because you didn't use that specific specialization anywhere until then. I've been there, happy hunting if you're in that situation. I can only recommend setting the CC environment variable to "clang" and CXX to "clang++" in a case like that, it'll save you some time. It errors catches any template code, used or not, unlike GCC.
    In fact, clang right now is my default compiler in my development environment. And while clang's 'scan-build' static analyzer isn't as far as I hoped, it does some things well and is improved every release. Something like this is doesn't even exist in the gcc tool-chain. If more and more developers discover what day-to-day advantages clang has over GCC, it will get used more and more, at the expense of GCC.

    GCC still has an edge over clang regarding optimizations and platforms it compiles on/for, but LLVM is a lot more flexible, and has a cleaner code-base (which is normal for such a young project). Don't ridicule clang, because it WILL catch up, and this will happen faster than most people expect.

    So GPL winning? As long as developers stand behind it, and I'm afraid it's going to lose ground here.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koffie View Post
    There is a reason Linus refuses to adopt GPLv3 for the kernel
    Yeah, but it's not that reason.

    Linux cannot relicense the kernel because it's not his decision to make.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Yeah, but it's not that reason.

    Linux cannot relicense the kernel because it's not his decision to make.
    I think you don't really follow Linus Torvalds, he has always been critical of the FSF and RMS. Linux clearly stated on multiple occasions that he is not willing to release any of his own code under GPLv3, and that GPLv2 is the best licence for him. Linus seems to be a guy that has both feet on the ground and lives in a real world, opposed to an idealistic utopia.

    The problem with GPLv3 is that it is anti "tivoization"/DRM, and tries to limit what will be done with the code, while GPLv2 is "pro code sharing". That's a completely different mindset. GPLv3 actually prevents codesharing on more than one occasion, or is forcing some people to release their code under multiple licenses.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    Arguing which license is more used is like arguing which jeans color is better.
    Black jeans are not better than blue jeans, people prefer black jeans because they find it more fitting for their use case (lifestyle), not because they are better.

    And building an OS using BSD license is good for student projects, they will close it down anyway - who cares?

    Quote Originally Posted by koffie View Post
    I think you don't really follow Linus Torvalds, he has always been critical of the FSF and RMS. Linux clearly stated on multiple occasions that he is not willing to release any of his own code under GPLv3, and that GPLv2 is the best licence for him. Linus seems to be a guy that has both feet on the ground and lives in a real world, opposed to an idealistic utopia.

    The problem with GPLv3 is that it is anti "tivoization"/DRM, and tries to limit what will be done with the code, while GPLv2 is "pro code sharing". That's a completely different mindset. GPLv3 actually prevents codesharing on more than one occasion, or is forcing some people to release their code under multiple licenses.
    Linus was never critical of FSF or RMS, but he is critical when it comes to relicensing the whole kernel, because he himself made a mistake to license it under GPL2 only.

    How, he has to track down every single contributor and ask them if its ok to change license, which is really hard job and in his viewpoint its not not worthy for just adding "anti-tivioization".

    But GPL3 is much more, hence Linux is licensed GPL2, LGPL2+, GPL3 + many more open licenses now, while Linus himself signs just as "(c) Linus Torvalds".
    Last edited by brosis; 01-29-2013 at 08:28 AM.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koffie View Post
    The problem with GPLv3 is that it is anti "tivoization"/DRM, and tries to limit what will be done with the code, while GPLv2 is "pro code sharing". That's a completely different mindset. GPLv3 actually prevents codesharing on more than one occasion, or is forcing some people to release their code under multiple licenses.
    Say, would you please stop writing bullshit?

    GPL2 is less Free, as in "containing more ways to Restrict Freedoms".

    GPL3 is more Free as in "adding more Restrictions on removing Freedoms".

    You can also read it as: GPL3 is less Free as in "it is more restrictive to "have more Restrictions on removing Freedoms".

    But hold on, a Freedom to "add a Restriction" is NOT Freedom, but is freedom to Restrict.
    Freedom to Restrict is NOT Freedom.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •