3 ms·

Clang is another, iirc.

pjmlp 4y ago
Nope, LLVM was started at Iilinois university, and clang only came into the picture because Apple wasn't going to get a ticket for GPL v3 GCC ride. Had it not been for the license change, clang would never had happened.
- projektfu 4y ago
  Clang fits the second half, that Apple contributes a ton to it. CUPS is another, it was ok but not great until Apple took it in and made it work with a ton of devices, and also make vendors wake up and support it. Now Windows has a much worse printing environment, and would do well to just adopt CUPS.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Nope, one of the reasons why clang is lagging behind everyone in C++20 support is that C++17 seems to be good enough for Apple purposes regarding their use of C++, and they withdraw resources from it. Also they don't contribute everything upstream, like the stable bitcode format used in watchOS, or the SafeC used in iBoot. Apple hired the CUPS developer, that is why, again not started by them and they had to obey the license. Windows a worse printing environment than CUPS? What a joke.
    - projektfu 4y ago
      Well if Apple didn't contribute to Clang, it would have C++ 20 because it would be developed by all those developers that aren't Apple. How can Apple be responsible for its deficiencies and not its development?
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        > Clang fits the second half, that Apple contributes a ton to it. So where is that ton to it?
        projektfu 4y ago
        I know you were around way back then so you probably should remember it took a bit to bring clang to feature parity with gcc. There was a lot of excitement that Apple was involved in the work, and it really did get there to the point where FreeBSD, among others, could switch to clang full time.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        Of course, they needed to get rid of GCC. The point is what contributions they are doing in 2022.
- olliej 4y ago
  Clang was started by, and primarily developed by, Apple. Why Apple started Clang isn't relevant - because there is no reason they had to make it OSS. Clang also wasn't only a licensing thing - gcc doesn't work as a general tooling platform. Similarly libc++, etc.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    It surely is relevant, because it wasn't out of love for FOSS like many are advocating. GCC originally meant, GNU C Compiler and got renamed into GNU Compiler Collection exactly because it became a general platform to write compilers for the GNU ecosystem. The irony that now GCC is far ahead of clang in ISO C++ support shows how much Apple and others care about upstream.

Nope, LLVM was started at Iilinois university, and clang only came into the picture because Apple wasn't going to get a ticket for GPL v3 GCC ride. Had it not been for the license change, clang would never had happened.

projektfu 4y ago
Clang fits the second half, that Apple contributes a ton to it. CUPS is another, it was ok but not great until Apple took it in and made it work with a ton of devices, and also make vendors wake up and support it. Now Windows has a much worse printing environment, and would do well to just adopt CUPS.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Nope, one of the reasons why clang is lagging behind everyone in C++20 support is that C++17 seems to be good enough for Apple purposes regarding their use of C++, and they withdraw resources from it. Also they don't contribute everything upstream, like the stable bitcode format used in watchOS, or the SafeC used in iBoot. Apple hired the CUPS developer, that is why, again not started by them and they had to obey the license. Windows a worse printing environment than CUPS? What a joke.
  - projektfu 4y ago
    Well if Apple didn't contribute to Clang, it would have C++ 20 because it would be developed by all those developers that aren't Apple. How can Apple be responsible for its deficiencies and not its development?
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      > Clang fits the second half, that Apple contributes a ton to it. So where is that ton to it?
      - projektfu 4y ago
        I know you were around way back then so you probably should remember it took a bit to bring clang to feature parity with gcc. There was a lot of excitement that Apple was involved in the work, and it really did get there to the point where FreeBSD, among others, could switch to clang full time.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        Of course, they needed to get rid of GCC. The point is what contributions they are doing in 2022.
olliej 4y ago
Clang was started by, and primarily developed by, Apple. Why Apple started Clang isn't relevant - because there is no reason they had to make it OSS. Clang also wasn't only a licensing thing - gcc doesn't work as a general tooling platform. Similarly libc++, etc.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  It surely is relevant, because it wasn't out of love for FOSS like many are advocating. GCC originally meant, GNU C Compiler and got renamed into GNU Compiler Collection exactly because it became a general platform to write compilers for the GNU ecosystem. The irony that now GCC is far ahead of clang in ISO C++ support shows how much Apple and others care about upstream.