4 ms·

This does not really matter, there is really worse. This real apocalypse did happen upon making gcc a c++ project. This is probably one of the biggest mistakes

This does not really matter, there is really worse. This real apocalypse did happen upon making gcc a c++ project. This is probably one of the biggest mistakes in open software ever. There were rumors which do match the timing: the media labs (and gcc steering "committee") at MIT being fiddled auround by B. Gates via Epstein (yes, the one you are thinking about). Are those rumors true? Well, there is "something", but "actually what"? All we know is RMS had to "disappear" for a little while... and that was not for health issues and probably to avoid being splash by the MIT 'media labs' affair. Open source is not enough anymore, we (all of us) need _lean_ open source, which excludes de facto ultra-complex syntax computer languages (c++ and similar), that to foster real-life alternatives in the SDK space. gcc is now not much better that closed source software.

pjmlp 1y ago
LLVM is a C++ project from the start and has 5x more contributions than GCC, we should have moved on from C long time ago.
- sylware 1y ago
  Indeed, LLVM was bad right from the start...
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Apparently the world of compiler vendors and university researchers don't agree with. LLVM is the only open source project that rivals with the Linux kernel in the amount of contributions. https://www.phoronix.com/news/LLVM-Code-Activity-2024 https://www.phoronix.com/news/LLVM-Code-Activity-2024
    - sylware 1y ago
      academics does not mean honest and good anymore.
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        Why should it?
uecker 1y ago
I can't comment on the rumors, but at least since I started contributing to GCC a decade ago and I suspect for much longer, RMS certainly is not involved with GCC at all and he does not have any influence on the project in any way. I agree that moving to C++ was a mistake, and I agree that for software to be truly free it has to be lean, so that users can meaningfully contribute. Apocalypse is certainly exaggerated, as GCC is still something that is fairly accessible to newcomers. But it certainly reflects the general and unfortunate trend of making things too complex.
- sylware 1y ago
  Yeah, I used ironically the apocalypse word, that to highlight the fact the damage is seriously high. I often push the envelop to call gcc/clang "backdoor generators" (even though nowadays, it seems it is more likely to be hidden in the supply chain/SDK). For me gcc is in /opt, as it's over: this is "open source" not worth more than a binary blob... which generates machine code for EVERYTHING... baw... hurt. And it seems we are more and more to understand how critical _lean_ is for open source software (and file formats/network protocols), _including the SDK namely the computer languages_. Real-life alternatives or deep customizations are way harder to build without _lean_ software. A good example: web "app" and web "site". web "app" is javascript requiring one of the massive whatng cartel web engines. web "site" is classic or noscript/basic (x)html (aka basic 2D/table based HTML forms only, with a clean CSS/presentation split). Also, I should be able to bootstrap, and that reasonably, a full elf/linux based OS with a simple C compiler (assembler+linker), for instance cproc/scc/tinycc/etc. gcc being now c++ broke everything, and I cannot believe the MIT media lab/"gcc steering commitee" did not know that, and the rumors of B.Gates interfering at "MIT medialab" via Epstein funding would explain open source quality obvious sabotage decision making. All that said, I think it is game over, and we should move toward RISC-V assembly written programs sided with high-level languages (python/ruby/shell/javascript only engine/etc) with RISC-V assembly written interpreters, with a very conservative usage of macro preprocessing (because some preprocessors may reach c++ and similar complexity and that would not be much better than the current state). I am currently coding basic rv64 assembly (no pseudo-instructions, only core ISA, using a basic C preprocessor). I have a littele rv64 interpreter to run them on x86_64... well, until the programs stay simple enough.

pjmlp 1y ago

LLVM is a C++ project from the start and has 5x more contributions than GCC, we should have moved on from C long time ago.

sylware 1y ago
Indeed, LLVM was bad right from the start...
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Apparently the world of compiler vendors and university researchers don't agree with. LLVM is the only open source project that rivals with the Linux kernel in the amount of contributions. https://www.phoronix.com/news/LLVM-Code-Activity-2024 https://www.phoronix.com/news/LLVM-Code-Activity-2024
  - sylware 1y ago
    academics does not mean honest and good anymore.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      Why should it?

uecker 1y ago

I can't comment on the rumors, but at least since I started contributing to GCC a decade ago and I suspect for much longer, RMS certainly is not involved with GCC at all and he does not have any influence on the project in any way. I agree that moving to C++ was a mistake, and I agree that for software to be truly free it has to be lean, so that users can meaningfully contribute. Apocalypse is certainly exaggerated, as GCC is still something that is fairly accessible to newcomers. But it certainly reflects the general and unfortunate trend of making things too complex.

sylware 1y ago
Yeah, I used ironically the apocalypse word, that to highlight the fact the damage is seriously high. I often push the envelop to call gcc/clang "backdoor generators" (even though nowadays, it seems it is more likely to be hidden in the supply chain/SDK). For me gcc is in /opt, as it's over: this is "open source" not worth more than a binary blob... which generates machine code for EVERYTHING... baw... hurt. And it seems we are more and more to understand how critical _lean_ is for open source software (and file formats/network protocols), _including the SDK namely the computer languages_. Real-life alternatives or deep customizations are way harder to build without _lean_ software. A good example: web "app" and web "site". web "app" is javascript requiring one of the massive whatng cartel web engines. web "site" is classic or noscript/basic (x)html (aka basic 2D/table based HTML forms only, with a clean CSS/presentation split). Also, I should be able to bootstrap, and that reasonably, a full elf/linux based OS with a simple C compiler (assembler+linker), for instance cproc/scc/tinycc/etc. gcc being now c++ broke everything, and I cannot believe the MIT media lab/"gcc steering commitee" did not know that, and the rumors of B.Gates interfering at "MIT medialab" via Epstein funding would explain open source quality obvious sabotage decision making. All that said, I think it is game over, and we should move toward RISC-V assembly written programs sided with high-level languages (python/ruby/shell/javascript only engine/etc) with RISC-V assembly written interpreters, with a very conservative usage of macro preprocessing (because some preprocessors may reach c++ and similar complexity and that would not be much better than the current state). I am currently coding basic rv64 assembly (no pseudo-instructions, only core ISA, using a basic C preprocessor). I have a littele rv64 interpreter to run them on x86_64... well, until the programs stay simple enough.