5 ms·

I'm guessing it's a combination of genuine goodwill (Dreamworks has a history of open-sourcing stuff) and wanting to be able to hire people who already have exp

by mkaic 4y ago

I'm guessing it's a combination of genuine goodwill (Dreamworks has a history of open-sourcing stuff) and wanting to be able to hire people who already have experience with their renderer instead of having to train every new hire. Not to mention the improvements that will surely be made to it once anyone can contribute a pull request. Whatever their reasoning, I'm hyped because it seems like an unconditional win-win -- artists get a great new render engine, Dreamworks gets kudos + free development + market/mind share.

hinkley 4y ago
I know a guy who hacked on Apple's compiler fixing bugs. It turned into a job offer, but he didn't like the interplay of compensation and relocation. Now would have been a good time for him to check back on their relocation policy but in the interim it would be a large demotion instead of a small one. I used to joke that F5 owes me a job and 2 month's salary for all the free QA we did for them back when their session affinity code was just a checkbox on the PR material. If they were more open that might have played out a bit differently.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  LLVM and Clang (I’m assuming you’re referring to these based on timing) are not Apple’s. Both have been under the LLVM Developer Group from inception, and LLVM existed for many years before Apple hired one of the lead devs. While it’s true that Lattner worked for Apple while he created Clang and that his personal contributions were probably biased, it’s always been an outside of Apple project with independent contributors.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    LLVM used GCC C as a front end. Clang was an Apple project, since GCC wasn't designed to integrate into an IDE like Xcode. >One of Clang's main goals is to provide a library-based architecture, so that the compiler could interoperate with other tools that interact with source code, such as integrated development environments (IDE). In contrast, GCC works in a compile-link-debug workflow; integrating it with other tools is not always easy. For instance, GCC uses a step called fold that is key to the overall compile process, which has the side effect of translating the code tree into a form that looks unlike the original source code. If an error is found during or after the fold step, it can be difficult to translate that back into one location in the original source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang#Background Lattner gave a tech talk at Google introducing LLVM 2.0 and explaining some of Apple's rational for creating Clang. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeRaLPupGks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeRaLPupGks
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      I said it was created by him while he was at Apple: > While it’s true that Lattner worked for Apple while he created Clang and that his personal contributions were probably biased But it wasn’t silo’d into Apple and then released to the open source field, it was created as an open source project under the LLVM Developer Group from it’s inception. So yes, his contributions and goals were to make it targeted for Apple’s needs; but there were plenty of independent contributors that were focused on just making it a good C/C++ compiler front-end for LLVM and were more focused on making it a general competitor to GCC. It would be more accurate to refer to is as an Apple sponsored project.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Hacker News gonna Hacker News. I could explain it but I don't have the energy to respond to a gotcha today. This has nothing to do with the conversation in the grandparent or the whole thread really.
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      It’s OK to be wrong. Just don’t spread your mistruths.
      - junofan 4y ago
        You forgot about the Swift compiler ;) which did have a lot of bugs to fix!
        hinkley 4y ago
        <touches side of nose>
      - hinkley 4y ago
        > It’s OK to be wrong. It sure is. Especially when you nerdsnipe yourself and try to drag a conversation with you. > Just don’t spread your mistruths. You are very invested in pretty much nothing at all. What mistruths am I spreading? That Apple appreciated people fixing bugs that affected them? Oh. No.

by mkaic 4y ago

hinkley 4y ago

I know a guy who hacked on Apple's compiler fixing bugs. It turned into a job offer, but he didn't like the interplay of compensation and relocation. Now would have been a good time for him to check back on their relocation policy but in the interim it would be a large demotion instead of a small one. I used to joke that F5 owes me a job and 2 month's salary for all the free QA we did for them back when their session affinity code was just a checkbox on the PR material. If they were more open that might have played out a bit differently.

deaddodo 4y ago
LLVM and Clang (I’m assuming you’re referring to these based on timing) are not Apple’s. Both have been under the LLVM Developer Group from inception, and LLVM existed for many years before Apple hired one of the lead devs. While it’s true that Lattner worked for Apple while he created Clang and that his personal contributions were probably biased, it’s always been an outside of Apple project with independent contributors.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  LLVM used GCC C as a front end. Clang was an Apple project, since GCC wasn't designed to integrate into an IDE like Xcode. >One of Clang's main goals is to provide a library-based architecture, so that the compiler could interoperate with other tools that interact with source code, such as integrated development environments (IDE). In contrast, GCC works in a compile-link-debug workflow; integrating it with other tools is not always easy. For instance, GCC uses a step called fold that is key to the overall compile process, which has the side effect of translating the code tree into a form that looks unlike the original source code. If an error is found during or after the fold step, it can be difficult to translate that back into one location in the original source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang#Background Lattner gave a tech talk at Google introducing LLVM 2.0 and explaining some of Apple's rational for creating Clang. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeRaLPupGks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeRaLPupGks
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    I said it was created by him while he was at Apple: > While it’s true that Lattner worked for Apple while he created Clang and that his personal contributions were probably biased But it wasn’t silo’d into Apple and then released to the open source field, it was created as an open source project under the LLVM Developer Group from it’s inception. So yes, his contributions and goals were to make it targeted for Apple’s needs; but there were plenty of independent contributors that were focused on just making it a good C/C++ compiler front-end for LLVM and were more focused on making it a general competitor to GCC. It would be more accurate to refer to is as an Apple sponsored project.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Hacker News gonna Hacker News. I could explain it but I don't have the energy to respond to a gotcha today. This has nothing to do with the conversation in the grandparent or the whole thread really.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    It’s OK to be wrong. Just don’t spread your mistruths.
    - junofan 4y ago
      You forgot about the Swift compiler ;) which did have a lot of bugs to fix!
      - hinkley 4y ago
        <touches side of nose>
    - hinkley 4y ago
      > It’s OK to be wrong. It sure is. Especially when you nerdsnipe yourself and try to drag a conversation with you. > Just don’t spread your mistruths. You are very invested in pretty much nothing at all. What mistruths am I spreading? That Apple appreciated people fixing bugs that affected them? Oh. No.