3 ms·

I reckon what you call SDK is what I'd call the build tools. C++ projects tend to use CMake and that's what I dread most. There have been projects where I brute

by tosti 9d ago

I reckon what you call SDK is what I'd call the build tools. C++ projects tend to use CMake and that's what I dread most. There have been projects where I brute forced my way on the command line towards succesfully compiling a binary. It's rare, but I kinda know the pain. If I'd want to roll my own distro again, I'll have a look at an old dir with lots of scripts and patches where I tried doing just that. (I bet almost none of it works with current tarball versions.) I think I'll retire with NetBSD. Keep up the good work though, someone ought to highlight the insanity of build tools building build tools.

sylware 8d ago
In the SDK, I do include the "compiler": the computer language syntax complexity is critical here since it is a barrier of entry of any new "real-life" alternative compiler. NetBSD won't protect you here. For this major reason, computer languages with a "simple" syntax and "alternative" real-life compilers should be favored (or you know it is reasonable to build one from scratch). The current _LESS WORSE_ alternative is C and similar. But this is far from a silver bullet. I think our only way out, namely getting rid of all this toxicity is assembly without abuse of any macro-preprocessor, that's why worldwide non-IP locked ISA standard like RISC-V are so much important.
- tosti 8d ago
  NetBSD can be compiled from another OS and a compiler can be compiled to shell script. You'd take a minimal compiler (eg lcc), compile it to shell script, run it on the target, have it compile itself, older gcc and work your way up to one that builds the rest of the OS. If you really want to start over from scratch, some form of assembly is indeed required :) And the first assembler would have to be assembled by hand. I'm not sure if riscv is useful for that, I'd try finding the oldest m68k still serviceable. And the sooner you get to C, the better. Starting from scratch is one thing, doing it all in asm takes more than a lifetime. And from C to various interpreters, of course. Most programs can be written in a scripting language and have fewer bugs than if they were written in more verbose languages.
  - sylware 8d ago
    I did not get everything you said, sorry. But where I do agree: I presented the "assembly saving the world from big tech toxicity" would come with very high level scripting languages (probably a mess... but less toxic than what we have today), but with their interpreters/JIT "compilers" written is such assembly without abuse of any macro pre-processor. I gave some thoughts about porting Bellard quickjs to pure hand written/tool assisted RISC-V assembly.
    - tosti 8d ago
      I'd favor more incremental steps. The sooner you get the specific CPU instructions out of the way the better. Otherwise your liberation party might be short lived. What I described is an example of build bootstrapping. There's a website about it, https://www.bootstrappable.org/ https://www.bootstrappable.org/
      - sylware 7d ago
        Here, only regulation can help, there is no going against corpos with billions of $ and backed by funds of thousands of billions of $. Much of Big Tech abuses non pertinent complexity and size, not to mention their manic usage of planned obsolescence. There, the regulation should secure and set in ice a basic subset of file formats and protocols for interoperability which are known to be reasonable to implement again from scratch with "Small Tech". And by subset, I meant for instance noscript/basic HTML for the web; UTF-8 text files for text; I guess JSON should be favored over XML; a subset of PDF (certainly not all of it...);etc. If an online service have a 'chat', a basic IRC bridge should be there with a properly display access URL, etc, etc. That does not block "new" and "innovative" things to happen in any way. Some of Big Tech hates "small is beautiful" and stability in time then will fight hard with their $ for that not to happen (administration "corruption"). Complexity and size (including the SDK then the computer language syntax complexity) is their bread and butter to keep "control" and keep alternatives away. For the "bootstrappable", it is the starting point of building from 'small and simple' toward big and complex, aka the SDK 'binary seed'. At the time anybody would expect a 'simple C compiler' with a simple linker and assembler buildable with that simple C compiler... but people at the gcc steering commitee and the usage of many C extensions without maintaining proper fallback to assembler source files (in kernels, hence linux) broke the chain of 'sanity' for good. Now you must have an ultra complex c++ compiler to "bootstrap" (~LFS), not to mention the required zillions of complex tools required by the "build systems". Lately, it seems AI coding may be the salvation here... How? AI seems to assist writting c++(insert you computer language with a complex syntax here) to simple C "transpilers" (somebody pretended to have done the same with a rust->simple C transpiler, was published here on HN). I have to say I have never used AI, since they are gated with the web engines of the whatwg cartel (I cannot even get a token to use some web API), I have never tested. The conclusion: fixing the software stack to let sane small alternatives to 'exist' and be 'real life' is probably not going to be calm and quiet.

by tosti 9d ago

sylware 8d ago

In the SDK, I do include the "compiler": the computer language syntax complexity is critical here since it is a barrier of entry of any new "real-life" alternative compiler. NetBSD won't protect you here. For this major reason, computer languages with a "simple" syntax and "alternative" real-life compilers should be favored (or you know it is reasonable to build one from scratch). The current _LESS WORSE_ alternative is C and similar. But this is far from a silver bullet. I think our only way out, namely getting rid of all this toxicity is assembly without abuse of any macro-preprocessor, that's why worldwide non-IP locked ISA standard like RISC-V are so much important.

tosti 8d ago
NetBSD can be compiled from another OS and a compiler can be compiled to shell script. You'd take a minimal compiler (eg lcc), compile it to shell script, run it on the target, have it compile itself, older gcc and work your way up to one that builds the rest of the OS. If you really want to start over from scratch, some form of assembly is indeed required :) And the first assembler would have to be assembled by hand. I'm not sure if riscv is useful for that, I'd try finding the oldest m68k still serviceable. And the sooner you get to C, the better. Starting from scratch is one thing, doing it all in asm takes more than a lifetime. And from C to various interpreters, of course. Most programs can be written in a scripting language and have fewer bugs than if they were written in more verbose languages.
- sylware 8d ago
  I did not get everything you said, sorry. But where I do agree: I presented the "assembly saving the world from big tech toxicity" would come with very high level scripting languages (probably a mess... but less toxic than what we have today), but with their interpreters/JIT "compilers" written is such assembly without abuse of any macro pre-processor. I gave some thoughts about porting Bellard quickjs to pure hand written/tool assisted RISC-V assembly.
  - tosti 8d ago
    I'd favor more incremental steps. The sooner you get the specific CPU instructions out of the way the better. Otherwise your liberation party might be short lived. What I described is an example of build bootstrapping. There's a website about it, https://www.bootstrappable.org/ https://www.bootstrappable.org/
    - sylware 7d ago
      Here, only regulation can help, there is no going against corpos with billions of $ and backed by funds of thousands of billions of $. Much of Big Tech abuses non pertinent complexity and size, not to mention their manic usage of planned obsolescence. There, the regulation should secure and set in ice a basic subset of file formats and protocols for interoperability which are known to be reasonable to implement again from scratch with "Small Tech". And by subset, I meant for instance noscript/basic HTML for the web; UTF-8 text files for text; I guess JSON should be favored over XML; a subset of PDF (certainly not all of it...);etc. If an online service have a 'chat', a basic IRC bridge should be there with a properly display access URL, etc, etc. That does not block "new" and "innovative" things to happen in any way. Some of Big Tech hates "small is beautiful" and stability in time then will fight hard with their $ for that not to happen (administration "corruption"). Complexity and size (including the SDK then the computer language syntax complexity) is their bread and butter to keep "control" and keep alternatives away. For the "bootstrappable", it is the starting point of building from 'small and simple' toward big and complex, aka the SDK 'binary seed'. At the time anybody would expect a 'simple C compiler' with a simple linker and assembler buildable with that simple C compiler... but people at the gcc steering commitee and the usage of many C extensions without maintaining proper fallback to assembler source files (in kernels, hence linux) broke the chain of 'sanity' for good. Now you must have an ultra complex c++ compiler to "bootstrap" (~LFS), not to mention the required zillions of complex tools required by the "build systems". Lately, it seems AI coding may be the salvation here... How? AI seems to assist writting c++(insert you computer language with a complex syntax here) to simple C "transpilers" (somebody pretended to have done the same with a rust->simple C transpiler, was published here on HN). I have to say I have never used AI, since they are gated with the web engines of the whatwg cartel (I cannot even get a token to use some web API), I have never tested. The conclusion: fixing the software stack to let sane small alternatives to 'exist' and be 'real life' is probably not going to be calm and quiet.