Eric S. Raymond Calls LLVM The "Superior Compiler" To GCC and defending GCC is futile
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Ex free software supporter and open source advocate Eric S. Raymond recently had some words to say about LLVM and how GCC's pretty much a piece of shit no matter what RMS says.
Links:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ESR-Clang-GCC-LLVM-Emacs
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00457.html
How little respect you have to the people that contribute code, time and money to make a free as in freedom compiler by simply calling their well intentioned effort a "piece of shit".
Also, you are being unnecessarily rude on this forum according to common sense and "Trisquel Community Guidelines"[1]. That's bad if you still don't get it.
[1] https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines
I never called it a piece of shit personally. If you actually went through and read the mailing lists entries and the responses, you would get the impression that there is a lot of negativity towards GCC in favor of LLVM. Eric S. Raymond pretty much said GCC was irrelevant now and he wouldn't notice it gone and one maintainer said that he is going to put in LLVM support and doesn't care about RMS's and the FSF's ideology.
So in summary, if English isn't your primary language like others on this board, "piece of shit" is a sensationalized description of what those people mean.
I am a translator!
he didn't! he said that someone else did
Ideologically, LLVM is diametrically opposed to Trisquel.
On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 10:34:49 AM <name at domain> wrote:
> he didn't! he said that someone else did
>
Why start another thread on the same issue? https://trisquel.info/en/forum/rmstheres-systematic-effort-attack-gnu-packages
Of course esr will say that, he doesn't care about freedom. I think this just validates rms' point.
Raymond is full of crap, he's the one that said that we shouldn't use the term free software, not because the ideals are wrong but because it isn't selling much because people and companies do not like to talk about ethics. For me, that's like saying that we shouldn't tell people to not kill because it's immoral but because they will probably go to jail if they do that. Well, guess what, when they really want to kill someone, they will just try as hard as they can to not get caught. And the same thing happens with free software, they will move to a proprietary alternative if that program is more powerful.
Exactly, it is about the morals not the functionality. GCC could be a load of crap (it isn't) but it is free and that is the most important factor.
and it just so happens to be a awesome compile as well!
completely agree. gcc is an excellent compiler and capable of a lot of things, but to know that, you have to dig in. It's like emacs: the only way to fully exploit their capabilities is by reading it's documentation and understand it.
In few words: gcc's developers have something to be proud of.
"is by reading it's documentation and understand it."
do you know of any tutorials for gnu assembler aimed at people who are new to assembly?
they all seem to be for nasm
"do you know of any tutorials for gnu assembler aimed at people who are new to assembly?"
My apologies, I don't know any. I could share links but all of them are easily found using duckduckgo search engine and non of them were read by me.
Good luck.
Ah, and sorry for that "it's" because it's incorrect, it should have been "its"
name at domain wrote:
> Exactly, it is about the morals not the functionality. GCC could be a
> load of crap (it isn't) but it is free and that is the most important
> factor.
That's a very good point to raise to any Open Source advocate such as
Eric Raymond because they're so eager to downplay software freedom.
Hence any Open Source advocate's argument that technical features matter
so much. RMS was right when he wrote "Why Open Source misses the point
of Free Software"
(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html);
Raymond either doesn't get that point or gets it but tries hard to
downplay the importance of ethics and software freedom in pursuit of
speaking to businesses.
The FSF has published
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when_free_software_isnt_practically_better.html
for a long time and the point is still valid, particularly in
discussions where some Open Source advocate has to rely on technical
superiority. Open Source advocates are always trying to distract
audiences away from freedom talk so they can frame the debate around
something developmental.
Sorry, but this article should had been post-it in the TROLL HOLE and not in the main forum of Trisquel.
why?
I am a translator!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jimPXzGaY6w
substitute "wendy" with "jodiendo"
:)
SuperTramp83
Boo supertramp, boo, is not about Trisquel!! Booo!!
LOL
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires