3 ms·

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 A

by 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
Have been is the right word. This thread keeps having its goal posts moved around, first is was an example, then got the spotlight of being only about clang, then I pointed out about Apple/Google original purposes, then it was something else, and yet another one. Just head off to /r/cpp that is where hunches are coming from. Have you at very least filtered by C++ clang only related contributions instead of LLVM ones? Most likely not, only clicked here https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/graphs/contributors https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/graphs/contributors and came right away to reply.
- tgma 2y ago
  Yes, as I acknowledged I did not spend time digging in who wrote which exact patch or sift through some loudmouths on /r/cpp whining about things. The burden to substantiate your argument at this point is chiefly on you. I have spent enough time on this already. You can narrow things down to some area that you care about specifically, but I am fairly certain Google and Apple each spend tens of millions of dollars a year, if not 100+, on the LLVM project at large. Are you suggesting this $$$ figure is wrong? To contextualize, I have been one of those PhD student in the exact same space who used clang/libtooling in a past life, as well as a maintainer of a sufficiently popular corporate open source projects, and I do have my own hunches on how much exactly random "volunteer contribution" is often worth (hint: it is mostly extra pain for the maintainers to review). The irony is if Apple closed it up for themselves as proprietary software in the first place, they would not have received that criticism. If you start open sourcing, you will be treated with a much different, IMHO unfair, benchmark. Before LLVM, much of the PL research prototype would be done on Java with some research JVM crap because it was hard to do it in the real world with native code, so I could the academics beneficiaries not among the abused.

by tgma 2y ago

pjmlp 2y ago

Have been is the right word. This thread keeps having its goal posts moved around, first is was an example, then got the spotlight of being only about clang, then I pointed out about Apple/Google original purposes, then it was something else, and yet another one. Just head off to /r/cpp that is where hunches are coming from. Have you at very least filtered by C++ clang only related contributions instead of LLVM ones? Most likely not, only clicked here https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/graphs/contributors https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/graphs/contributors and came right away to reply.

tgma 2y ago
Yes, as I acknowledged I did not spend time digging in who wrote which exact patch or sift through some loudmouths on /r/cpp whining about things. The burden to substantiate your argument at this point is chiefly on you. I have spent enough time on this already. You can narrow things down to some area that you care about specifically, but I am fairly certain Google and Apple each spend tens of millions of dollars a year, if not 100+, on the LLVM project at large. Are you suggesting this $$$ figure is wrong? To contextualize, I have been one of those PhD student in the exact same space who used clang/libtooling in a past life, as well as a maintainer of a sufficiently popular corporate open source projects, and I do have my own hunches on how much exactly random "volunteer contribution" is often worth (hint: it is mostly extra pain for the maintainers to review). The irony is if Apple closed it up for themselves as proprietary software in the first place, they would not have received that criticism. If you start open sourcing, you will be treated with a much different, IMHO unfair, benchmark. Before LLVM, much of the PL research prototype would be done on Java with some research JVM crap because it was hard to do it in the real world with native code, so I could the academics beneficiaries not among the abused.