5 ms·

This was my favorite quote: "The free software world needs an LTS compiler."

by rbc 12y ago

supdog 12y ago
Agree. I wonder what it would take to make Rust 1.0 + LLVM into an LTS?
- kibwen 12y ago
  Rust 1.0 represents a foundation for the language, rather than the ultimate expression of it. A LTS release could be a good idea, but I don't see it happening for at least a year or so.
zer0rest 12y ago
definitely
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ternaryoperator 12y ago
Sorry to be that guy, but what's an LTS compiler? (Google was not forthcoming.)
- barsonme 12y ago
  LTS means long-term support, which means freezing features and maintaining that version for 2-5 (or more) years.
  - erglkjahlkh 12y ago
    Also LTS means "95% of the developers left for the newer version because on open source projects no one can be forced to work on legacy applications like in business world". Good luck with that. I tried to go on with the Ubuntu's LTS once, and the logic definitely doesn't work. Bugs, even major ones, just pile up faster than the remaining couple developers can fix, and it's was too painful of an experience to repeat. Ubuntu LTS has shelf life of 6-12 months unless if you start paying. Which is unfortunate.
    - muuh-gnu 12y ago
      > unless if you start paying. Which is unfortunate. So you want something for nothing. Why exactly would Ubuntu (or anybody else) want you as an user?
      - _yosefk 12y ago
        I want "something", that something being backwards compatibility and long-term support, for $100-150. Can I get it from Ubuntu or any other Linux/Unix? I sure as hell get it from Microsoft.
    - danieldk 12y ago
      95% of the developers left for the newer version because on open source projects no one can be forced to work on legacy applications Yep. I see this a lot in the scientific world. Clusters and other high-performance hardware run old versions of Scientific Linux or CentOS (because they are well-supported and the bugs are known). However, a lot of open source project (e.g. in machine learning) expect you to run the latest Ubuntu or OS X version. Result: you usually end up hand-compiling large amounts of software, manually adding '-I' and '-L' flags to oddball build systems that don't pick up CFLAGS or LDFLAGS correctly. Nobody cares about backwards compatibility, everyone wants the new toys.
- jodoherty 12y ago
  LTS as in Long-Term Support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support The basic idea is that once released, the LTS version of the compiler would continue to receive fixes and updates for several years (at least two according to Wikipedia), no matter how many new versions are released during that time.
pjmlp 12y ago
The enterprise world already had them since decades. Just try to update a compiler version on a large code base, specially in corporations where developer tools are managed by IT support.
the_why_of_y 12y ago
Of course, everybody wants to have an LTS release of every piece of software they depend on, that "just works" for all their use cases [1], and that somebody else maintains for many years, like magic. The problem is, nobody wants to pay for its maintenance, hence it does not exist [2]. In the FOSS world, nobody is entitled to a pony. Also it's rather ironic that it's an OpenBSD developer wanting this, considering http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/long-term-support-considered-harmful http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/long-term-support-consid... - how does that reasoning not apply to compilers? [1] including of course the all-important Motorola 88k back-end! [2] with very few exceptions: RHEL, SLES
- JoelJacobson 12y ago
  That's not true for all open source projects. Look at PostgreSQL for instance, they back-patch all bugfixes (where possible) to all of the previous supported major versions.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Miod and I have different opinions. Anyway, what I think Miod really wants is a compiler free from regressions. Unfortunately, new compiler versions tend to introduce at least as many regressions as bug fixes.

This was my favorite quote: "The free software world needs an LTS compiler."

by rbc 12y ago

This was my favorite quote: "The free software world needs an LTS compiler."

supdog 12y ago

Agree. I wonder what it would take to make Rust 1.0 + LLVM into an LTS?

kibwen 12y ago
Rust 1.0 represents a foundation for the language, rather than the ultimate expression of it. A LTS release could be a good idea, but I don't see it happening for at least a year or so.

zer0rest 12y ago

definitely

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ternaryoperator 12y ago

Sorry to be that guy, but what's an LTS compiler? (Google was not forthcoming.)

barsonme 12y ago
LTS means long-term support, which means freezing features and maintaining that version for 2-5 (or more) years.
- erglkjahlkh 12y ago
  Also LTS means "95% of the developers left for the newer version because on open source projects no one can be forced to work on legacy applications like in business world". Good luck with that. I tried to go on with the Ubuntu's LTS once, and the logic definitely doesn't work. Bugs, even major ones, just pile up faster than the remaining couple developers can fix, and it's was too painful of an experience to repeat. Ubuntu LTS has shelf life of 6-12 months unless if you start paying. Which is unfortunate.
  - muuh-gnu 12y ago
    > unless if you start paying. Which is unfortunate. So you want something for nothing. Why exactly would Ubuntu (or anybody else) want you as an user?
    - _yosefk 12y ago
      I want "something", that something being backwards compatibility and long-term support, for $100-150. Can I get it from Ubuntu or any other Linux/Unix? I sure as hell get it from Microsoft.
  - danieldk 12y ago
    95% of the developers left for the newer version because on open source projects no one can be forced to work on legacy applications Yep. I see this a lot in the scientific world. Clusters and other high-performance hardware run old versions of Scientific Linux or CentOS (because they are well-supported and the bugs are known). However, a lot of open source project (e.g. in machine learning) expect you to run the latest Ubuntu or OS X version. Result: you usually end up hand-compiling large amounts of software, manually adding '-I' and '-L' flags to oddball build systems that don't pick up CFLAGS or LDFLAGS correctly. Nobody cares about backwards compatibility, everyone wants the new toys.
jodoherty 12y ago
LTS as in Long-Term Support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support The basic idea is that once released, the LTS version of the compiler would continue to receive fixes and updates for several years (at least two according to Wikipedia), no matter how many new versions are released during that time.

pjmlp 12y ago

The enterprise world already had them since decades. Just try to update a compiler version on a large code base, specially in corporations where developer tools are managed by IT support.

the_why_of_y 12y ago

Of course, everybody wants to have an LTS release of every piece of software they depend on, that "just works" for all their use cases [1], and that somebody else maintains for many years, like magic. The problem is, nobody wants to pay for its maintenance, hence it does not exist [2]. In the FOSS world, nobody is entitled to a pony. Also it's rather ironic that it's an OpenBSD developer wanting this, considering http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/long-term-support-considered-harmful http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/long-term-support-consid... - how does that reasoning not apply to compilers? [1] including of course the all-important Motorola 88k back-end! [2] with very few exceptions: RHEL, SLES

JoelJacobson 12y ago
That's not true for all open source projects. Look at PostgreSQL for instance, they back-patch all bugfixes (where possible) to all of the previous supported major versions.
tedunangst 12y ago
Miod and I have different opinions. Anyway, what I think Miod really wants is a compiler free from regressions. Unfortunately, new compiler versions tend to introduce at least as many regressions as bug fixes.