4 ms·

> Your second paragraph is explaining perfectly why open source doesn't work > some guy's free time project and is created on a $0 budget. > Programmers work

> Your second paragraph is explaining perfectly why open source doesn't work > some guy's free time project and is created on a $0 budget. > Programmers work for free You seem to be completely out of touch with what FOSS is. The amount of relevant FOSS hacked by some teenager for free in moms basement is negligible. The largest contributors to the Linux kernel are IBM, Intel and Oracle. Nobody there works for free.

pjmlp 2y ago
Because it costs down their own development costs, doing more with less. How much upstream do you think BSD gets from Sony and Apple, besides a few crumbs? clang was sponsored exactly to allow Google and Apple to take a compiler and not be legally obliged to upstream their sauce. Nowadays clang has mostly replaced most proprietary compilers on surviving UNIXes, and embedded OSes, how much of those downstream changes land on upstream clang? It is mostly volunteer work improving ISO C and ISO C++ compliance, despite all the money being made by those folks.
- tgma 2y ago
  > clang was sponsored exactly to allow Google and Apple to take a compiler and not be legally obliged to upstream their sauce. Sponsored is an understatement. It was pretty much entirely funded by those two, so if the goal was to leech on volunteers, that would be a pretty bad move by those companies.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    The goal was not to give anything back as expected by GCC and GPL, especially the at the time relatively new GPL3. Which is exactly what happened after clang got mature enough, GCC was expunged from their platforms. Apple first, followed by Google about a year later. Note that nowadays, Apple clang has its own column on cppreference, Google is focused on Carbon/Rust/Go, and both cases most of the contributions are on LLVM side, not clang and ISO compliance.
    - tgma 2y ago
      I totally get that avoiding GPL3.0 was the goal for Apple (less so for Google I'd say). If avoiding "giving anything back" were the goal they have fucked up on that. Regardless, the point is they could have pretty much done proprietary software and kept it for themselves too and no one would complain. It's not somehow a brilliant conspiracy to leech off of the measly volunteer base when they have paid the majority of development costs. P.S. you focus on ISO compliance. Could it be that the actual user base does not really care about it as much as the rest of the aspects of the compiler (features, correctness, performance) and thus deprioritized by everyone. I don't consider clang abandoned by Google or Apple.
      - pjmlp 2y ago
        What matters is actually who puts the effort into bringing clang into modern times, regardless of your opinion Github is there for tracking purposes, who contributes what. Also clang was only one example of who profits and who puts into the work, like the endless number of PhD students contributing to LLMV or MLIR.
        karparov 2y ago
        Nobody forces those Ph.D. students to do that.
        pjmlp 2y ago
        HR Person at cool startup: "Please show me your Github repos"
        knowitnone 2y ago
        that's not force. that's marketing oneself as a good candidate
        tgma 2y ago
        Yes, I just briefly clicked at the top contributors. As expected they are mostly not homeless PhD students. All big ones are employed or have been employed by Apple/Google/RedHat/SiFive/Sony, often multiple of those. (Did you actually look or just spreading your hunches?) If you think it's the long tail of endless contributions is what makes a production quality open source project like clang tick, well, we disagree... (In fact such PhD students are often the prime beneficiaries of the work by commercial companies, because they get to build their research stuff on top of LLVM.)

pjmlp 2y ago

Because it costs down their own development costs, doing more with less. How much upstream do you think BSD gets from Sony and Apple, besides a few crumbs? clang was sponsored exactly to allow Google and Apple to take a compiler and not be legally obliged to upstream their sauce. Nowadays clang has mostly replaced most proprietary compilers on surviving UNIXes, and embedded OSes, how much of those downstream changes land on upstream clang? It is mostly volunteer work improving ISO C and ISO C++ compliance, despite all the money being made by those folks.

tgma 2y ago
> clang was sponsored exactly to allow Google and Apple to take a compiler and not be legally obliged to upstream their sauce. Sponsored is an understatement. It was pretty much entirely funded by those two, so if the goal was to leech on volunteers, that would be a pretty bad move by those companies.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  The goal was not to give anything back as expected by GCC and GPL, especially the at the time relatively new GPL3. Which is exactly what happened after clang got mature enough, GCC was expunged from their platforms. Apple first, followed by Google about a year later. Note that nowadays, Apple clang has its own column on cppreference, Google is focused on Carbon/Rust/Go, and both cases most of the contributions are on LLVM side, not clang and ISO compliance.
  - tgma 2y ago
    I totally get that avoiding GPL3.0 was the goal for Apple (less so for Google I'd say). If avoiding "giving anything back" were the goal they have fucked up on that. Regardless, the point is they could have pretty much done proprietary software and kept it for themselves too and no one would complain. It's not somehow a brilliant conspiracy to leech off of the measly volunteer base when they have paid the majority of development costs. P.S. you focus on ISO compliance. Could it be that the actual user base does not really care about it as much as the rest of the aspects of the compiler (features, correctness, performance) and thus deprioritized by everyone. I don't consider clang abandoned by Google or Apple.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      What matters is actually who puts the effort into bringing clang into modern times, regardless of your opinion Github is there for tracking purposes, who contributes what. Also clang was only one example of who profits and who puts into the work, like the endless number of PhD students contributing to LLMV or MLIR.
      - karparov 2y ago
        Nobody forces those Ph.D. students to do that.
        pjmlp 2y ago
        HR Person at cool startup: "Please show me your Github repos"
        knowitnone 2y ago
        that's not force. that's marketing oneself as a good candidate
      - tgma 2y ago
        Yes, I just briefly clicked at the top contributors. As expected they are mostly not homeless PhD students. All big ones are employed or have been employed by Apple/Google/RedHat/SiFive/Sony, often multiple of those. (Did you actually look or just spreading your hunches?) If you think it's the long tail of endless contributions is what makes a production quality open source project like clang tick, well, we disagree... (In fact such PhD students are often the prime beneficiaries of the work by commercial companies, because they get to build their research stuff on top of LLVM.)