pbsdp

16 ms·

31.
by pbsdp 13y ago
JVM, CLR, Mono AOT complation, NaCL/PNaCL. A future in which we wind up with architectural support for NaCL-style sandboxing intrinsics, in the same way we saw them be developed for VT-(x|d). Sticking us with JS for another decade and
32.
by pbsdp 13y ago
The same way you'd do it in any runtime? Adopt an adequate representation model of the machine state, and save that state.
33.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> 2. There are lots of reasons to target C. C can be compiled by many compilers, while LLVM IR can only be compiled by LLVM to things LLVM can compile to. For example, game consoles, various new embedded platforms, etc. - they all have
34.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> Plus JS has got so fast, it's becoming hard to see the point anyway. Native is faster. A lot faster. And that's what browser apps are competing against.
35.
by pbsdp 13y ago
It's impossible because Mozilla won't work with Google, not because it's actually impossible.
36.
by pbsdp 13y ago
It's hardly a non-sequitor; the parallels with Marxist thought on common ownership of the means of production are rather undeniable. Like communism did to economies, the GPL has done our industry immeasurable harm by attempting to enfo
37.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> It could be used as a library as long as the other projects also made their software copyleft. That never happened. On the other hand, LLVM has lead to a tool renaissance. > The goal of copyleft is freedom for the users, not &quo
38.
by pbsdp 13y ago
In the relative context of implementing a production runtime, that's "just a bit of register/stack allocation". If you're hobby-hacking a project, then you may as well just target something that already exists, beca
39.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Direct: Constraints/requirements directly related to implementing a maximally effecient runtime architecture. Indirect: Market constraints that drive technical limitations. When it comes to browsers, Mozilla both creates and exists
40.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Calling conventions aren't the hard part; it's just a bit of register/stack allocation.
41.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Introducing a browser bytecode and/or sandboxing is not anywhere near the scale of complexity and expense of inventing a new CPU architecture. It's a policy decision, not a technical decision.
42.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> The GPL protects users, not developers. The users can already choose to not use proprietary software, so what is it protecting them against? Themselves? > You seem to think downstream developers have an entitlement to release pro
43.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Not direct technical reasons, no. The only indirect technical justification is in maintaining compatibility with existing browsers, but that falls over pretty fast when you're a browser maker (Mozilla) and refusing to work with anoth
44.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this ... So copyleft/GPL licensing isn't an attempt to 'control' code? Despite the fact that t
45.
by pbsdp 13y ago
C is a heavyweight intermediary language which brings with it a /lot/ of baggage. There's no valid direct technical reason other than financial resource constraints to justify compiling to C (... or JS, for that matter) i
46.
by pbsdp 13y ago
I've written ARM assembly for iOS apps to optimize carefully for memory ordering constraints and memory access latency (eg, pipeline stalls), and made use of NEON SIMD for certain critical paths. This has yielded (ballpark) 2x-5x impro
47.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> Users -- those who are actually interacting with a running version of the software -- lose nothing with the GPL. On the contrary, their rights to the code are secured. They've been denied the 'right' to use proprietary
48.
by pbsdp 13y ago
I'd argue quite the opposite, I think I understand them quite clearly, and I think the facts speak for themselves in terms of how much grief the GPL and GPL incompatibilities have caused our industry.
49.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Sure they do, if they choose to only use binaries provided by those that also provide source code. Which is their choice.
50.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> I can't quite understand people like you. That's because you've pretty substantially misinterpreted what I said. I don't think "developers somehow owe you code to use in a proprietary fashion" -- develop
51.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Users can also CHOOSE not to use proprietary software. You're taking away their right to choose to use your software in a proprietary context.
52.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Why would it be better if LLVM and clang were copyleft? Then it couldn't be used in other products as a library, and the entire industry would be set back to where we were with GCC in the first place -- unable to fully leverage our too
53.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Apple implemented a full AOT/JIT/Disassembler (LLVM), debugger (lldb), static code analyzer (clang), C and C compiler (clang), and c++11 stdlib, all under a free MIT-like OSS license. There all built as libraries, can be linked ag
54.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Everyone else gets along; GPL is the outlier.
55.
by pbsdp 13y ago
I don't think anyone in the industry isn't aware of RMS' paternalistic and communistic motivations.
56.
by pbsdp 13y ago
The BSD advertising clause has been dead for years, and it was primarily incompatible with ... the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with licenses that impose more restrictions than it does, even if those restrictions are fairly limited, like th
57.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Your entire argument depends on the fiction that users can't make their own choices, or that somehow your code can be made non-OSS once released. Neither is true, and this hokey 'user rights' notion is just a thinly veiled ju
58.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> In both these cases the 'end user' can choose not to use what is offered. Exactly -- so what's the point of offering a 'right' the user already has, if it means taking away rights from developers? Users can a
59.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Why shouldn't I blame the GPL? If they'd used a liberal OSS license, the code would be open source, unencumbered, and this problem wouldn't exist. The GPL introduces license incompatibilities; no GPL, no problem.
60.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? Working around licensing by building a hackisb fork-based plugin system? We're in this business to write software for people to actually use .

More ›