2 ms·

> Imagine if the only compilers available were proprietary compilers locked behind hundreds of pages of licensing requirements and legal bullshit. That's prett

by phaemon 12y ago

> Imagine if the only compilers available were proprietary compilers locked behind hundreds of pages of licensing requirements and legal bullshit. That's pretty much what we did have, before RMS started GCC. I guess we need an RMS for hardware!

dalke 12y ago
As a reminder, Stallmans's first attempt at GCC used the Pastel compiler source code from LLNL. http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History > Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I obtained the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a multi-platform compiler developed at Lawrence Livermore Lab. It supported, and was written in, an extended version of Pascal, designed to be a system-programming language. I added a C front end, and began porting it to the Motorola 68000 computer. I presume that the Pastel compiler therefore didn't require "hundreds of pages ..." in order to use and redistribute it. Or if it did, it wasn't binding on those who acquired the source.
- phaemon 12y ago
  True, but it only did Pascal, so I'll stand by my "pretty much" ;-)
  - dalke 12y ago
    It did Pastel, which is related to Pascal but isn't actually Pascal. I picked it as an example of a compiler where others could distribute the source. Since you want to narrow it to C compilers, I'll instead point to the proprietary Aztec C compiler. It didn't come "locked behind hundreds of pages of licensing requirements and legal bullshit". In fact, as far as I can tell, it had no licensing requirements outside of it being covered by copyright. Certainly there are fewer requirements than the GPL. Here's a list of C compilers for micros of the 1980s. http://www.z80.eu/c-compiler.html http://www.z80.eu/c-compiler.html . In a spot check, I can't find any which have hundreds (or even tens) of of pages licensing requirements. Do you have any evidence to support your earlier statement? I've noticed that people sometimes emphasize Stallman's impact, but do so more out of ignorance of the other threads of history. How do I know that you aren't similarly inclined, given that it seems to be different than the written accounts from that time?

by phaemon 12y ago

dalke 12y ago

As a reminder, Stallmans's first attempt at GCC used the Pastel compiler source code from LLNL. http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History > Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I obtained the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a multi-platform compiler developed at Lawrence Livermore Lab. It supported, and was written in, an extended version of Pascal, designed to be a system-programming language. I added a C front end, and began porting it to the Motorola 68000 computer. I presume that the Pastel compiler therefore didn't require "hundreds of pages ..." in order to use and redistribute it. Or if it did, it wasn't binding on those who acquired the source.

phaemon 12y ago
True, but it only did Pascal, so I'll stand by my "pretty much" ;-)
- dalke 12y ago
  It did Pastel, which is related to Pascal but isn't actually Pascal. I picked it as an example of a compiler where others could distribute the source. Since you want to narrow it to C compilers, I'll instead point to the proprietary Aztec C compiler. It didn't come "locked behind hundreds of pages of licensing requirements and legal bullshit". In fact, as far as I can tell, it had no licensing requirements outside of it being covered by copyright. Certainly there are fewer requirements than the GPL. Here's a list of C compilers for micros of the 1980s. http://www.z80.eu/c-compiler.html http://www.z80.eu/c-compiler.html . In a spot check, I can't find any which have hundreds (or even tens) of of pages licensing requirements. Do you have any evidence to support your earlier statement? I've noticed that people sometimes emphasize Stallman's impact, but do so more out of ignorance of the other threads of history. How do I know that you aren't similarly inclined, given that it seems to be different than the written accounts from that time?