5 ms·

Here's a benchmark from the author of the mold linker: https://twitter.com/nabbisen/status/1665936938837344256 https://twitter.com/nabbisen/status/166593693883

Here's a benchmark from the author of the mold linker: https://twitter.com/nabbisen/status/1665936938837344256 https://twitter.com/nabbisen/status/1665936938837344256 > I installed Xcode 15 Beta to try out the new Apple's linker. It seems that my mold/sold linker is still a bit faster than theirs, but the gap has now reduced to ~60% when linking the sold linker itself on my Mac Studio. Apple's new linker is in the same league as mine. Great job!

covector 3y ago
It looks like the gap between the two is very little (< 100ms) and the Apple linker performs slightly better than mold on large applications: https://twitter.com/SmileyKeith/status/1666168273199845377 https://twitter.com/SmileyKeith/status/1666168273199845377
armchairhacker 3y ago
Why didn't Apple just use mold?
- taspeotis 3y ago
  It's AGPL?
  - canucker2016 3y ago
    ...and the macos/iOS-supported version, named 'sold', is commercial and non-AGPL. see https://github.com/bluewhalesystems/sold https://github.com/bluewhalesystems/sold
    - shagie 3y ago
      At $8/user/month (while I realize that still likely be pocket change to Apple)... how much is that and what is the risk that the company changes the licensing once you're using it? Large companies (Apple, Amazon, and the like) would likely buy the company rather than license their product (see Dark Sky (now WeatherKit), Kiva (now Amazon Robotics - https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/mick-mountz https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/mick-mountz 23:22 )) so that they can't lose control over something that they want when management for one of there tools changes. And so why use mold (license problems and they wouldn't want to impose the AGPL on all their developers), or be a reseller of sold ($8/month/user - how many developers are in the Apple developer program) - it comes down to "it is better for us to develop our own and release it so that there is certainty about the license for any developers who use it."
      - sacnoradhq 3y ago
        There is a total prohibition on AGPL software at most MAANGs.
        shagie 3y ago
        Apple doesn't even touch the GPL if it can avoid it (thus why its software is mostly based on BSD licensed code). It would even be further beyond the pale to say "here is a linker for 3rd party developers to use... oh, and its AGPL, sorry 'bout that." So to the question from the GP: > Why didn't Apple just use mold? Because they won't tell 3rd party developers to use AGPl software or require a 3rd party developer to use a different 3rd party developer's licensed software that may change. If Apple is going to release something, they're going to develop it and release it themselves with as few other encumbrances as possible.
        tinus_hn 3y ago
        They don’t touch GPLv3 code; they avoid GPLv2 code because it can be relicensed GPLv3. That’s why they are shipping ancient bash and switching to another shell, for instance.
        dietr1ch 3y ago
        There's software that could be used if public builds were used, and contributions were made in the open, but lawyers and security guys don't really like the risk that comes from using something you didn't built.
        shagie 3y ago
        If Apple was releasing software as part of the Xcode package, would AGPL code be acceptable to include in that package as libraries for 3rd party developers to use?
        dietr1ch 3y ago
        Sorry, I was talking about software used by FAANG employees (sorry Meta, I hate your new name, not sorry really). Now, thinking about that case, I guess that Apple could make it easy for people to depend on AGPL software that they download on their own, and that Apple only provides some sort of index or crawlers for it. No need for Apple to have AGPL software on their end.
- geodel 3y ago
  Yeah, and then suffer endless barrage of hate on "how evil mega corporate stole the work of lone developer"
- sacnoradhq 3y ago
  Hostile licensing. mold, like many other ill-informed projects lately, is pseudo-open source aimed at being locked up as a commercial product with a license that is incompatible with free use in the real world.
  - handsclean 3y ago
    This is not true, it’s AGPL or pay.
    - sacnoradhq 3y ago
      Like I said, hostile licensing.
- omoikane 3y ago
  A related question might be why Apple didn't make a business offer to Ueyama-san to improve mold/sold further, e.g. by offering him a position or by buying his company. But my guess is Apple want all the development done in-house. I think this "Apple's new linker is in the same league as mine. Great job!" response is full of tact and grace, considering Apple just undercut his business.
  - ksec 3y ago
    >A related question might be why Apple didn't make a business offer to Ueyama-san to improve mold/sold further, I dont think he was willing to sell to Apple for what Apple would consider as reasonable price anyway.
- glandium 3y ago
  The bigger question would be why not lld, considering Xcode's compiler is clang.

covector 3y ago

It looks like the gap between the two is very little (< 100ms) and the Apple linker performs slightly better than mold on large applications: https://twitter.com/SmileyKeith/status/1666168273199845377 https://twitter.com/SmileyKeith/status/1666168273199845377

armchairhacker 3y ago

Why didn't Apple just use mold?

taspeotis 3y ago
It's AGPL?
- canucker2016 3y ago
  ...and the macos/iOS-supported version, named 'sold', is commercial and non-AGPL. see https://github.com/bluewhalesystems/sold https://github.com/bluewhalesystems/sold
  - shagie 3y ago
    At $8/user/month (while I realize that still likely be pocket change to Apple)... how much is that and what is the risk that the company changes the licensing once you're using it? Large companies (Apple, Amazon, and the like) would likely buy the company rather than license their product (see Dark Sky (now WeatherKit), Kiva (now Amazon Robotics - https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/mick-mountz https://www.fromscratchradio.org/show/mick-mountz 23:22 )) so that they can't lose control over something that they want when management for one of there tools changes. And so why use mold (license problems and they wouldn't want to impose the AGPL on all their developers), or be a reseller of sold ($8/month/user - how many developers are in the Apple developer program) - it comes down to "it is better for us to develop our own and release it so that there is certainty about the license for any developers who use it."
    - sacnoradhq 3y ago
      There is a total prohibition on AGPL software at most MAANGs.
      - shagie 3y ago
        Apple doesn't even touch the GPL if it can avoid it (thus why its software is mostly based on BSD licensed code). It would even be further beyond the pale to say "here is a linker for 3rd party developers to use... oh, and its AGPL, sorry 'bout that." So to the question from the GP: > Why didn't Apple just use mold? Because they won't tell 3rd party developers to use AGPl software or require a 3rd party developer to use a different 3rd party developer's licensed software that may change. If Apple is going to release something, they're going to develop it and release it themselves with as few other encumbrances as possible.
        tinus_hn 3y ago
        They don’t touch GPLv3 code; they avoid GPLv2 code because it can be relicensed GPLv3. That’s why they are shipping ancient bash and switching to another shell, for instance.
      - dietr1ch 3y ago
        There's software that could be used if public builds were used, and contributions were made in the open, but lawyers and security guys don't really like the risk that comes from using something you didn't built.
        shagie 3y ago
        If Apple was releasing software as part of the Xcode package, would AGPL code be acceptable to include in that package as libraries for 3rd party developers to use?
        dietr1ch 3y ago
        Sorry, I was talking about software used by FAANG employees (sorry Meta, I hate your new name, not sorry really). Now, thinking about that case, I guess that Apple could make it easy for people to depend on AGPL software that they download on their own, and that Apple only provides some sort of index or crawlers for it. No need for Apple to have AGPL software on their end.
geodel 3y ago
Yeah, and then suffer endless barrage of hate on "how evil mega corporate stole the work of lone developer"
sacnoradhq 3y ago
Hostile licensing. mold, like many other ill-informed projects lately, is pseudo-open source aimed at being locked up as a commercial product with a license that is incompatible with free use in the real world.
- handsclean 3y ago
  This is not true, it’s AGPL or pay.
  - sacnoradhq 3y ago
    Like I said, hostile licensing.
omoikane 3y ago
A related question might be why Apple didn't make a business offer to Ueyama-san to improve mold/sold further, e.g. by offering him a position or by buying his company. But my guess is Apple want all the development done in-house. I think this "Apple's new linker is in the same league as mine. Great job!" response is full of tact and grace, considering Apple just undercut his business.
- ksec 3y ago
  >A related question might be why Apple didn't make a business offer to Ueyama-san to improve mold/sold further, I dont think he was willing to sell to Apple for what Apple would consider as reasonable price anyway.
glandium 3y ago
The bigger question would be why not lld, considering Xcode's compiler is clang.