>Freedom in every sense of the word
Ah yes... cucks
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Freedom as long as you do exactly what we say and never disagree >in every sense of the word
No
2 years ago
Anonymous
>as long as you do exactly what we say
Examples or frick off. Literally meaningles words
2 years ago
Anonymous
Read the license, you must do as it says or you get fricked. Did you think it was just for show?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The license says you're free to do whatever you want with it, as long as you said you took from someone.
You schizo fricks never cease to amaze me.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The license says you're free to do whatever you want with it, as long as you do what we say
You're actually mentally ill, don't project your schizoness onto me
2 years ago
Anonymous
>muh schizo twitter buzzword
The reason for using license that constitutes "free software" is because you expect those who use the license to give back code so you don't lose access to changes made to your work. BSD, MIT, and stuff in the public domain can't guarantee this, but they are in a way "more free".
2 years ago
Anonymous
The made up "reasons" you think you're using it don't matter, read the actual legal text of the license and tell me what it says. Nowhere in it does it say you will not lose access to changes made to your work
2 years ago
Anonymous
>read the actual legal text of the license
Which one? LGPL, GPL, AGPL? They all have different rules, GPL at least doesn't require one to share modified code if it is used internally afaik so you are correct about that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>as long
so its not actually freedom
2 years ago
Anonymous
>working for free isn't cuckoldry
wat
2 years ago
Anonymous
You are working for free, companies use Linux because there's an army of freetards that will maintain a OS for them, all they have to do is join the LF and give them some peanuts. LF makes like 170M per year (only about half coming from donations), with literally every major billion dollar company being part of it lmao
2 years ago
Anonymous
MIT is like letting anybody frick your wife. GPL is like letting anybody frick your wife as long as they share online how to satisfy her.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>t.cucked moron
Imagine projecting this hard
2 years ago
Anonymous
Proprietary is when you pay for someone to frick your wife for you and aren't allowed watch.
GCC license enforcement already makes it cucked beyond belief anyhow. welcome to co-opted freedoms. that being said, clang is usable for a wide variety of uses GCC can't even compete in. It sucks and I'm a huge GPL gay.
>Gnutards are hopeless coomers and can't help it but associate licences with various fetishes.
you will never be white, you never have a successful product. you're like those obese child molesters from decades past that thought shareware model was a great idea, would cry about piracy the loudest despite only making $20 a year, then eventually someone disassembles your garbage to find most of your code is stolen and you end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on law fees to defend code that you stole, only to lose and then be forced to include such "cuck licenses" with your product for eternity.
jews, chinks and obese americans that can't code are afraid of open source licensing. always will be.
Well, so, I guess this is finally the slow game over for C and C++. For decades folks've been attempiting to create a language to replace C and it seems it's finally here.
>Blatant obvious null dereference >Valid pointer use
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't give a shit about your C standard or whatever other stupid shit you'll backpedal or be pedantic on, but you cannot prove that NULL is not an invalid address in all hardware. I don't care what the shitty C or C++ spec says because those completely gloss over the millions of very real realities of compilers and how hardware works today. have a nice day and you have zero clue what you're talking about.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If you don't follow my line of made up coping bullshit then have a nice day
No moron. Why are you defending C when you literally admit the spec is bad and doesn't reflect how machines actually use it. Why do mentally ills like you keep trying to get everyone to kill themselves when it's obvious you're the one who's so angry you'll explode at any second
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't give a shit about your moronic hardware, NULL should never be used as a valid address
2 years ago
Anonymous
>NULL should never be used as a valid address
why not? an address is an address and NULL is a valid address. cope and seethe. Learn what tagged unions are.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>why not? an address is an address and NULL is a valid address. cope and seethe. Learn what tagged unions are.
See, that's the problem. NULL in C is almost always literally 0 and yet it's by definition (C standard says so) an invalid address. It would make more sense to use -1 or something, but you rarely can because pointers aren't signed. The fact that NULL is technically a valid address is a bug. Luckily, at least for user-space code accessing 0x0 will always segfault, making it an invalid address in a way.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you are literally so dumb lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
The null pointer doesn't necessarily have the address 0. Also, most of the time, it's a virtual address, not a physical address, and most operating systems reserve the zero page so that the address 0 is invalid and thus can be used to easily represent the null pointer.
It's pretty much impossible to write conforming C while actually working with the hardware - that's why the Linux kernel relies on a number of non-standard features and properties of the implementation. The C abstract machine is simply too abstract.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>rhe Abstract Weapon
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The null pointer doesn't necessarily have the address 0
pedanticry maximus. lmao. it still doesn't matter if it's 0xFFFFFFFF... it's still a valid address.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but you cannot prove that NULL is not an invalid address in all hardware
the spec says it should be
2 years ago
Anonymous
a pointer is not an address
2 years ago
Anonymous
>i-it's not an address >i-it's a capability!!!
it's an address moron. Maybe when we see more ptr auth hardware I'll agree.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm literally working on an embedded project right now where they map the on-board flash starting at address 0.
The null pointer doesn't necessarily have the address 0. Also, most of the time, it's a virtual address, not a physical address, and most operating systems reserve the zero page so that the address 0 is invalid and thus can be used to easily represent the null pointer.
It's pretty much impossible to write conforming C while actually working with the hardware - that's why the Linux kernel relies on a number of non-standard features and properties of the implementation. The C abstract machine is simply too abstract.
Systems where NULL isn't 0 seem scary. Does
if (!ptr)
{
...
}
work then?
>It's pretty much impossible to write conforming C while actually working with the hardware
Totally. Strict aliasing alone is a total moronation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, to the programmer, the null pointer is always 0.
2 years ago
Anonymous
According to my reading of the standard the behavior of this is implementation-defined:
#include <stdio.h>
int main (void) {
long x = 1;
int *p = 0;
x--;
printf("%dn", p == (int *)x);
}
It's not a constant 0 so it doesn't have to equal a null pointer.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>C is how the computer works >except for all these times where C is not how the computer works then the standard doesn't count
This is what is known as cognitive dissonance. Are you Ctards finally going to admit that C is not how the computer works?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Do something stupid like dereferencing NULL >Blame the language for you being moronic
in x86 0 holds the iterrupt vector table.
you might argue that null shouldn have been a special flag and not 0 and you might be right but C is an old language. the compiler could detect it and warn you in a hosted environment though I agree (or track when NULL vs 0x0 is used).
actually now that I think about it it's mostly a moot point in x86 because you don't use the IVT in protected mode anyways. But you might want to reclaim that memory. although by the same token you could use inline asm to do it.
It's a real shame they're replacing it with some failed abortion ML/C++ mutt dialect that only autists and trannies understand. I guess systems programming just won't be for me in a couple years. The economy has no use for my cnile brain.
>It's over, GCCsisters.
GCC is alive due to Honza Hubicka working like a mad man, once he is gone it's over. Meanwhile Clang/LLVM has a ton of developers and all new development happens there, so yes, GCC is on its last legs.
Same with FSF, it has been infested top to bottom by SJW feminists, and white guys who kept Free Software alive by spending their spare time writing software for free have left since they are being spat on by the people in FSF.
It's kind of ironic that extreme leftism is what kills Free Software when Microsoft failed.
Who's been feeding you this trash? Stallman was always an extreme SJW leftist feminist. There were never any white guys keeping it alive, it was SJWs all along. You just don't want to admit you took work from leftists and liked it.
>Stallman was always an extreme SJW leftist feminist
We're talking about 4th wave feminism here, as in intersectional feminism, meaning everyone against white males.
99% of the people actually writing Free Software code are white males.
That's because white males are so racist and sexist they drive everyone else out of free software. You need to re-examine your "freedom movement" if the only people participating in it are white men who are already rich.
Stallman is a feminist crypto-communist, but he's not exactly a member of social justice culture.
There are some minor differences in dogma that mark him as a heretic (like his position on pronouns, which is woke but wrong-woke). More importantly, he's willing to say things like this: https://files.catbox.moe/d54re8.webm
It's not that his positions are any less extreme. On the whole they are more extreme, but that's not the issue. The issue is that he's autistic and bad at social games, and social justice culture is a social game. It's about proving in everything you do that you're dedicated to the cause, a true anti-racist. You don't go around acting on arbitrary deontological rules you made up twenty years ago, like Stallman and many other autists do, you go around subconsciously thinking about the way this will look. Can I be accused of speaking over marginalized voices? Will signal-boosting this mark me as a good ally? Nothing can be apolitical.
This is a way in which it's fair to say that Stallman is not a "SJW". I don't know if the FSF has actually been "infested top to bottom by SJW feminists", I haven't been paying attention. If they're willing to put up with Stallman they must be mild cases.
Mind that I'm speaking as a Tumblr user here. If you like Stallman but also think da joos are promoting homosexuality to destroy the white race then you should reconsider. And it's misguided to diagnose it as "extreme leftism", the ideological details matter surprisingly little. It's not a war against white males so much as a ceaseless struggle to be seen as a Good Person, in which dunking on white males is a useful tool.
This is a small brain post masquerading as a big brain effortpost. The anti-SJWs are expecting you to play a social game too.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The anti-SJWs are expecting you to play a social game too.
Of course they are. The rules are different though, and Stallman is not an "anti-SJW"—he's a clueless autist.
Stallman is a feminist crypto-communist, but he's not exactly a member of social justice culture.
There are some minor differences in dogma that mark him as a heretic (like his position on pronouns, which is woke but wrong-woke). More importantly, he's willing to say things like this: https://files.catbox.moe/d54re8.webm
It's not that his positions are any less extreme. On the whole they are more extreme, but that's not the issue. The issue is that he's autistic and bad at social games, and social justice culture is a social game. It's about proving in everything you do that you're dedicated to the cause, a true anti-racist. You don't go around acting on arbitrary deontological rules you made up twenty years ago, like Stallman and many other autists do, you go around subconsciously thinking about the way this will look. Can I be accused of speaking over marginalized voices? Will signal-boosting this mark me as a good ally? Nothing can be apolitical.
This is a way in which it's fair to say that Stallman is not a "SJW". I don't know if the FSF has actually been "infested top to bottom by SJW feminists", I haven't been paying attention. If they're willing to put up with Stallman they must be mild cases.
Mind that I'm speaking as a Tumblr user here. If you like Stallman but also think da joos are promoting homosexuality to destroy the white race then you should reconsider. And it's misguided to diagnose it as "extreme leftism", the ideological details matter surprisingly little. It's not a war against white males so much as a ceaseless struggle to be seen as a Good Person, in which dunking on white males is a useful tool.
>If they're willing to put up with Stallman they must be mild cases.
No, they really tried to get rid of him, but he still had enough FSF 'higher up' support to keep him on, which resulted in many SJW people in FSF leaving the organisation and Mozilla and the Tor organisation are demanding that he'd be thrown out.
>Stallman is a feminist crypto-communist
stopped reading there, you literally just copypasted random words from some buzzword dictionary
2 years ago
Anonymous
By "feminist" I mean the usual thing. See his website.
By "crypto-communist" I mean that he claims to hate communism now, particularly because he hates Stalin and the Soviet Union, but he sure did write a GNU manifesto about his Emacs commune. I guess he's probably not a literal communist any more, but he's a proud leftist.
>null can be 1 if that's an invalid pointer due to alignment, and this is perfectly acceptable >your programs WILL be optimized to the fastest possible nasal demon by trannie compiler writers
why are we using C again
>>null can be 1 if that's an invalid pointer due to alignment
This would be tricky, it has to compare equal to null pointers even of other types. I bet it only comes up on strange platforms.
Rust actually creates 1 pointers to zero-sized types (that never have to be dereferenced in hardware because they don't contain data, but can't be 0 because that'd break invariants): >> &*Box::new(()) as *const ()
0x1
2 years ago
Anonymous
if your code assumes a null pointer is zero, the compiler is free to replace it with a highly optimized nasal demon
compiler devs have zero understanding of real world use cases and in their quest for better benchmarks versus each other continue to make more and more absurd "optimizations" by breaking normal but technically-per-4-4.3-§4.5-is-undefined code that allows them to just not emit anything you wrote. Compiler developers optimize out your checks for null if specifications-allowed reordering lets them make you use the null pointer before checking it, and therefore dropping the null check because dereferencing a null pointer is bad and so therefore you obviously won't ever have a null. How long until LLVM is kicking GCC in the dick and GCC fires back with this optimization to remove a third of all null checks as "ill-formed"?
My bet's on two years.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if your code assumes a null pointer is zero
If you do that by using ! or comparing it to a literal 0 then it's required to work. There are other ways to get a zero, but would those come up in practice?
Compilers definitely do that shit, but I'm doubtful they'd do it in this case. Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough.
2 years ago
Anonymous
being called a "crypto-communist" by a mutt is a complement
>Microsoft failed
Look around. Does this seem like a world where Microsoft failed, or does it seem like a world where they got everything they ever wanted?
>Look around. Does this seem like a world where Microsoft failed
Failed in taking down Free Software, as in GPL software, which they worked overtime trying to do.
Now extreme wokeness is killing it instead, as the people (aka white guys) writing Free Software are spending their free time on other things, why would you spend it writing code for a community that is run by people who hate you.
>Same with FSF, it has been infested top to bottom by SJW feminists, and white guys who kept Free Software alive by spending their spare time writing software for free have left since they are being spat on by the people in FSF.
2/10 fanfic
>Same with FSF, it has been infested top to bottom by SJW feminists, and white guys who kept Free Software alive by spending their spare time writing software for free have left since they are being spat on by the people in FSF.
yeah...no. This is front page of FSF members only forum
>linus allows in rust >it gets unmaintained in a few years after rust gets ditched for the new language of the week >linus rips it out of linus >linus now has an excuse for not allowing new hipster languages in linux
He doesn't need an excuse, he has had no problem saying "no" the past thirty years' worth of hipster languages.
He actually thinks Rust could be useful.
It will take at least 5 years before something remotely important for the Kernel is written in Rust, so hopefully the Rust trannies will have joined the 41% by then.
I am very excited for this. I'm on Gentoo and rustc just sucks.
It probably will break some packages for a while, but I imagine major ones will stop relying on rustc black magic code and fall in line with the standard set forth.
I remember seeing a picture few days ago about how it takes 10 minutes to compile Linux and 8 hours to compile Chromium.
Glad to see that issue is getting fixed!
On typical platforms yes, but the standard doesn't require it. It says that a pointer defined with a literal "0" or "NULL" is a null pointer, and that a null pointer is unequal to a valid pointer, but not that a null pointer point to address zero. So the 0 can be a lie.
>null can be 1 if that's an invalid pointer due to alignment, and this is perfectly acceptable >your programs WILL be optimized to the fastest possible nasal demon by trannie compiler writers
why are we using C again
How are you looking? If you're just following GitHub's own recommendations then those are heavily bubbled, I keep getting recommendations related to this one niche framework where I once commented on an issue.
Easy point of reference: how much Java do you come across? It's one of the most popular languages on GitHub but I never see any because I don't care about Java.
>Rust only just recently (in the last two months) started supporting aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu as a first-class citizen >After YEARS of not supporting it on anything other than i686 and x86_64 >Somehow this is a good thing
Hope you Black folk don't frequent /aig/. Worst case scenario, I guess I'm moving to Open or NetBSD.
Why would OpenBSD intentionally introduce security vulnerabilities? It's sad that people fail to comprehend that rust introduces a whole new class of vulns that C doesn't suffer from.
>Why would OpenBSD intentionally introduce security vulnerabilities?
Using C in the year 2022 is intentionally introducing security vulnerabilities.
>It's sad that people fail to comprehend that rust introduces a whole new class of vulns that C doesn't suffer from.
Oh you're one of these people. Which vulnerabilities? This is going to be good.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The suicide of 50% of your development team.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He said the meme
Like clockwork.
Reminder that's less than the 100% of Cniles on IQfy who will commit suicide after reading OP's post.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Rust is like it's users, it's C++ presenting as a systems language. It is not, it is obscenely large and each new "feature" breaks stability. A rust program written 1 year ago looks outdated, a C program written 32 years ago looks fine.
Concurrency is literally a killer feature of Rust, as in, it kills any program that uses it. >program saftey
Processors aren't even safe, good luck making rust safe. Notice that C++ has 100x more bugs thatn C, rust will simply have 100x more bugs than Go.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it is obscenely large and each new "feature" breaks stability.
What are rust editions?
>a C program written 32 years ago looks fine.
Try this one weird trick to make your programming language look the same for 32 years. Just add nothing useful and don't fix any problems.
>Processors aren't even safe, good luck making rust safe
Why even bother using C then? Why don't you write everything in assembly?
>Notice that C++ has 100x more bugs thatn C, rust will simply have 100x more bugs than Go.
Rust actually is not bigger than golang. Golang has a heavier runtime.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why even bother using C then? Why don't you write everything in assembly?
Takes less time to code for it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why don't you write everything in assembly?
C is portable, assembly isn't. And this is especially relevant because ARM64 and RISC-V are in the rise.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>C is portable, assembly isn't. And this is especially relevant because ARM64 and RISC-V are in the rise.
LOL nope. C is not portable in any real sense, as it will run 10x slower on ARM and RISCV. Assembly is always the answer. Sides I would very much like to take advantage of the quirks of each processor that I write for.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>C is not portable in any real sense, as it will run 10x slower on ARM and RISCV.
Steady on with the mind-bending drugs there! Most of the time (with recent compilers) you get the same sorts of speeds and code densities out of compilers as you'd get with hand-written assembly. This didn't used to be true, but the current gcc does a truly excellent job (at least on ARM; haven't looked in depth at RISC-V as that's not on the ASIC I care about).
The exceptions to that density/efficiency rule are mostly in situations where you know you can do funky things with registers normally reserved for things like the stack, which is horribly unsafe if you have interrupts turned on. Yes, you could teach the compiler that trick, but it's so specialized that it isn't really worth it; I've only seen it used well exactly once.
2 years ago
Anonymous
C isn't portable in the sense you want it to be. C itself is easy to port to new targets, that's true, since the primary goal C was designed for was to have a simple, easy to program compiler. Most of the spec is implementation defined which means "whatever is fastest/easiest" so you end up being able to make a small, simple compiler. Things like header files, source-ordering for struct fields, before recent editions of C, needing to declare all local variables at the top of functions make single pass compilers pretty straightforward. They went so far towards the goal of making a simple compiler that they actually went too far: B was their first attempt, and it ended up being too simple, making coding in B too complicated, so they made "B with types" and called it C.
Programs written in C, though, are not portable unless they have been carefully written from the beginning with that in mind, which usually means painstakingly converting after the fact by playing whack-a-mole with dozens of strange bugs on the new platform even after automated linting. Also usually meaning you've littered your code with manual IFDEFs for various platforms. Real C programs aren't even necessarily portable between different versions of the same compiler on the same system, this one burned me recently: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3934 Despite the coping in the bug title, it's not a miscompile, just a broken program.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>each new "feature" breaks stability. A rust program written 1 year ago looks outdated, a C program written 32 years ago looks fine.
Not really. Typical new features are either incremental or superficial. They let you do something you couldn't do at all before or they give you a better way to write something that doesn't conflict with old practice.
You'll be reading old code and thinking "ah, I can tell this is old code because it says assert!(x == 3) instead of assert_eq!(x, 3)". But does that stop anyone from understanding it? Does it stop the code from compiling on newer versions? Does it have to be proactively fixed? No, no, and no. It doesn't hurt.
I write code that works on years-old versions and it's fine.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>each new "feature" breaks stability
which is why all projects since 1.0 are backwards compatible...
For me, whenever it compiles, the application doesn't work. When it compiles, because sometimes it just fails because frick you. I don't know if it's a moron crate developer problem or a rust language problem, but a handy pneumonic if you forget is "If it ain't Tier 1, it ain't gonna run."
The only time when I've had issues compiling for arm is with a project that used zeroMQ. Whoever wrote the crate had it link with some thing (I don't remember what) that wasn't found arm.
there is no "first-class citizen" support
there is tier 1 support, and the difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is that all changes are automatically checked against tier 1
if you want to promote your arch from 2 to 1, provide dedicated hardware for testing
In recent years, Linux has finally become a normie operating system. We are still at the peak, but this is the sign that good times are pretty much over. People have noticed a good thing and are trying to improve it by forcing memes on it. This is always the case, but once normies get a hold, the memes become exponential moronic.
>OS kernel finally gets support for a memory safe language >Get butthurt and think you need to switch to another OS written in an unsafe language
What is wrong with you morons lmao
>OS kernel finally gets support for a language whose memory safety has to be disabled to make it suitable for writing systems software, whose toolchain is fricked beyond all comprehension and is locked up behind proprietary or cuck license compilers, and which hasn't been finalized and constantly drops or changes major features
Hyuck hyuck hyuck, what could possibly go wrong? Hyuck.
>memory safety has to be disabled to make it suitable for writing systems software
Way to prove you've never actually written kernel patches. A lot of it is relatively high level code. The most restrictive requirements in drivers are that everything has to be OOM safe and can't include floating point, Rust handles those easily though. >whose toolchain is fricked beyond all comprehension
The guy working on the kernel integration is unironically fixing this. >locked up behind proprietary or cuck license compilers
Just fork it and put GPL on it. We know you won't, GPL shills are the true cucks. >which hasn't been finalized and constantly drops or changes major features
Literally doesn't happen, frick off with your FUD.
GCC became mostly irrelevant when stallman started demanding they stop implementing features because closed source companies might use them. Then it became fully irrelevant when it switched to the cancerous GPL3
The bloat is completely because stallman pressured them into crippling the plugin API to force users to upstream more patches. They could have had a modular design similar to LLVM a long time ago, but stallman didn't want it
>Then it became fully irrelevant when it switched to the cancerous GPL3
How is that any relevant? It's not like compilers are used in tivoized devices, and they also allowed a license to allow compilation of proprietary software.
It infects any other code they would link with the compiler
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It infects any other code they would link with the compiler
No, it does not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>stallman this >stallman that >source: my ass
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't know how much of the bloat can be blamed on it but that's something Stallman openly and deliberately did, yeah
>Then it became fully irrelevant when it switched to the cancerous GPL3
How is that any relevant? It's not like compilers are used in tivoized devices, and they also allowed a license to allow compilation of proprietary software.
>and they also allowed a license to allow compilation of proprietary software.
*They also added an exception to make software compiled with GCC not obligated to comply with the GPL and LGPL
I'm surprised that LLVM never bothered with a CAA, LOL.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18_0Hog_eSwES8lKwf7WJal3yBwwcYfvPu1yCfZnTcek/edit#gid=668482117
Man I dunno. GCC contains a Go compiler too and that project just died. Why would it be different with the Rust compiler when Rust is way more complicated and evolves way more quickly?
Wide platform support is more important for Rust than for Go, I could see that helping it.
It might not need immense manpower. Another Rust compiler, mrustc, is written by one single guy, apparently in his free time. It's not a complete implementation, but it can bootstrap rustc and every year he bumps up its support.
based.... gcc chuds keep losing. you can already build linux with clang today.
yeah, it's literally over.
Cuck license wins.
All foss licenses are cuck licenses
>Freedom in every sense of the word
Ah yes... cucks
>Freedom as long as you do exactly what we say and never disagree
>in every sense of the word
No
>as long as you do exactly what we say
Examples or frick off. Literally meaningles words
Read the license, you must do as it says or you get fricked. Did you think it was just for show?
The license says you're free to do whatever you want with it, as long as you said you took from someone.
You schizo fricks never cease to amaze me.
>The license says you're free to do whatever you want with it, as long as you do what we say
You're actually mentally ill, don't project your schizoness onto me
>muh schizo twitter buzzword
The reason for using license that constitutes "free software" is because you expect those who use the license to give back code so you don't lose access to changes made to your work. BSD, MIT, and stuff in the public domain can't guarantee this, but they are in a way "more free".
The made up "reasons" you think you're using it don't matter, read the actual legal text of the license and tell me what it says. Nowhere in it does it say you will not lose access to changes made to your work
>read the actual legal text of the license
Which one? LGPL, GPL, AGPL? They all have different rules, GPL at least doesn't require one to share modified code if it is used internally afaik so you are correct about that.
>as long
so its not actually freedom
>working for free isn't cuckoldry
wat
You are working for free, companies use Linux because there's an army of freetards that will maintain a OS for them, all they have to do is join the LF and give them some peanuts. LF makes like 170M per year (only about half coming from donations), with literally every major billion dollar company being part of it lmao
MIT is like letting anybody frick your wife. GPL is like letting anybody frick your wife as long as they share online how to satisfy her.
>t.cucked moron
Imagine projecting this hard
Proprietary is when you pay for someone to frick your wife for you and aren't allowed watch.
GCC license enforcement already makes it cucked beyond belief anyhow. welcome to co-opted freedoms. that being said, clang is usable for a wide variety of uses GCC can't even compete in. It sucks and I'm a huge GPL gay.
sorry, I mean LINUX license enforcement. (which is virtually non-existent).
>clang is usable for a wide variety of uses GCC can't even compete in
As?
>we wuz clangs
Wait what is your problem with clang again?
Gnutards are hopeless coomers and can't help it but associate licences with various fetishes.
>Gnutards are hopeless coomers and can't help it but associate licences with various fetishes.
you will never be white, you never have a successful product. you're like those obese child molesters from decades past that thought shareware model was a great idea, would cry about piracy the loudest despite only making $20 a year, then eventually someone disassembles your garbage to find most of your code is stolen and you end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on law fees to defend code that you stole, only to lose and then be forced to include such "cuck licenses" with your product for eternity.
jews, chinks and obese americans that can't code are afraid of open source licensing. always will be.
This smells very funny.
Why the frick does Google want to destroy society so bad ? They are literally cancer.
Well, so, I guess this is finally the slow game over for C and C++. For decades folks've been attempiting to create a language to replace C and it seems it's finally here.
Rust isn't even a good language. All anyone had to do to replace C and C++ is make a language that stop you from doing insanely stupid shit like
int *p = NULL;
int x = *p;
But somehow this is so hard for Cniles to detect it took 40 years for someone to create Rust. Absolute state of the software industry.
>valid pointer use is stupid
...
>Blatant obvious null dereference
>Valid pointer use
I don't give a shit about your C standard or whatever other stupid shit you'll backpedal or be pedantic on, but you cannot prove that NULL is not an invalid address in all hardware. I don't care what the shitty C or C++ spec says because those completely gloss over the millions of very real realities of compilers and how hardware works today. have a nice day and you have zero clue what you're talking about.
>If you don't follow my line of made up coping bullshit then have a nice day
No moron. Why are you defending C when you literally admit the spec is bad and doesn't reflect how machines actually use it. Why do mentally ills like you keep trying to get everyone to kill themselves when it's obvious you're the one who's so angry you'll explode at any second
I don't give a shit about your moronic hardware, NULL should never be used as a valid address
>NULL should never be used as a valid address
why not? an address is an address and NULL is a valid address. cope and seethe. Learn what tagged unions are.
>why not? an address is an address and NULL is a valid address. cope and seethe. Learn what tagged unions are.
See, that's the problem. NULL in C is almost always literally 0 and yet it's by definition (C standard says so) an invalid address. It would make more sense to use -1 or something, but you rarely can because pointers aren't signed. The fact that NULL is technically a valid address is a bug. Luckily, at least for user-space code accessing 0x0 will always segfault, making it an invalid address in a way.
you are literally so dumb lol
The null pointer doesn't necessarily have the address 0. Also, most of the time, it's a virtual address, not a physical address, and most operating systems reserve the zero page so that the address 0 is invalid and thus can be used to easily represent the null pointer.
It's pretty much impossible to write conforming C while actually working with the hardware - that's why the Linux kernel relies on a number of non-standard features and properties of the implementation. The C abstract machine is simply too abstract.
>rhe Abstract Weapon
>The null pointer doesn't necessarily have the address 0
pedanticry maximus. lmao. it still doesn't matter if it's 0xFFFFFFFF... it's still a valid address.
>but you cannot prove that NULL is not an invalid address in all hardware
the spec says it should be
a pointer is not an address
>i-it's not an address
>i-it's a capability!!!
it's an address moron. Maybe when we see more ptr auth hardware I'll agree.
I'm literally working on an embedded project right now where they map the on-board flash starting at address 0.
Systems where NULL isn't 0 seem scary. Does
if (!ptr)
{
...
}
work then?
>It's pretty much impossible to write conforming C while actually working with the hardware
Totally. Strict aliasing alone is a total moronation.
Yes, to the programmer, the null pointer is always 0.
According to my reading of the standard the behavior of this is implementation-defined:
#include <stdio.h>
int main (void) {
long x = 1;
int *p = 0;
x--;
printf("%dn", p == (int *)x);
}
It's not a constant 0 so it doesn't have to equal a null pointer.
>C is how the computer works
>except for all these times where C is not how the computer works then the standard doesn't count
This is what is known as cognitive dissonance. Are you Ctards finally going to admit that C is not how the computer works?
>Do something stupid like dereferencing NULL
>Blame the language for you being moronic
What does it do? Is that setting an integer pointer to a null pointer, or is it setting an integer value to a null pointer?
in x86 0 holds the iterrupt vector table.
you might argue that null shouldn have been a special flag and not 0 and you might be right but C is an old language. the compiler could detect it and warn you in a hosted environment though I agree (or track when NULL vs 0x0 is used).
actually now that I think about it it's mostly a moot point in x86 because you don't use the IVT in protected mode anyways. But you might want to reclaim that memory. although by the same token you could use inline asm to do it.
literally just don't dereference null
it's that easy
It's a real shame they're replacing it with some failed abortion ML/C++ mutt dialect that only autists and trannies understand. I guess systems programming just won't be for me in a couple years. The economy has no use for my cnile brain.
Rust isn't hard if you actually know how to write C code without horrible bugs
>only autists and trannies
>systems programming
Anon...I...
>finally the slow game over for C and C++.
thank fricking christ.
t. C++ pro
The pain with memory leaks will just be replaced by the pain with borrow checker btw. You'll not have headaches at runtime, though.
>It's over, GCCsisters.
GCC is alive due to Honza Hubicka working like a mad man, once he is gone it's over. Meanwhile Clang/LLVM has a ton of developers and all new development happens there, so yes, GCC is on its last legs.
Same with FSF, it has been infested top to bottom by SJW feminists, and white guys who kept Free Software alive by spending their spare time writing software for free have left since they are being spat on by the people in FSF.
It's kind of ironic that extreme leftism is what kills Free Software when Microsoft failed.
Who's been feeding you this trash? Stallman was always an extreme SJW leftist feminist. There were never any white guys keeping it alive, it was SJWs all along. You just don't want to admit you took work from leftists and liked it.
>Stallman was always an extreme SJW leftist feminist
We're talking about 4th wave feminism here, as in intersectional feminism, meaning everyone against white males.
99% of the people actually writing Free Software code are white males.
That's because white males are so racist and sexist they drive everyone else out of free software. You need to re-examine your "freedom movement" if the only people participating in it are white men who are already rich.
This is a small brain post masquerading as a big brain effortpost. The anti-SJWs are expecting you to play a social game too.
>The anti-SJWs are expecting you to play a social game too.
Of course they are. The rules are different though, and Stallman is not an "anti-SJW"—he's a clueless autist.
Stallman is a feminist crypto-communist, but he's not exactly a member of social justice culture.
There are some minor differences in dogma that mark him as a heretic (like his position on pronouns, which is woke but wrong-woke). More importantly, he's willing to say things like this: https://files.catbox.moe/d54re8.webm
It's not that his positions are any less extreme. On the whole they are more extreme, but that's not the issue. The issue is that he's autistic and bad at social games, and social justice culture is a social game. It's about proving in everything you do that you're dedicated to the cause, a true anti-racist. You don't go around acting on arbitrary deontological rules you made up twenty years ago, like Stallman and many other autists do, you go around subconsciously thinking about the way this will look. Can I be accused of speaking over marginalized voices? Will signal-boosting this mark me as a good ally? Nothing can be apolitical.
This is a way in which it's fair to say that Stallman is not a "SJW". I don't know if the FSF has actually been "infested top to bottom by SJW feminists", I haven't been paying attention. If they're willing to put up with Stallman they must be mild cases.
Mind that I'm speaking as a Tumblr user here. If you like Stallman but also think da joos are promoting homosexuality to destroy the white race then you should reconsider. And it's misguided to diagnose it as "extreme leftism", the ideological details matter surprisingly little. It's not a war against white males so much as a ceaseless struggle to be seen as a Good Person, in which dunking on white males is a useful tool.
>If they're willing to put up with Stallman they must be mild cases.
No, they really tried to get rid of him, but he still had enough FSF 'higher up' support to keep him on, which resulted in many SJW people in FSF leaving the organisation and Mozilla and the Tor organisation are demanding that he'd be thrown out.
Him remaining as of now is tentative at best.
>Stallman is a feminist crypto-communist
stopped reading there, you literally just copypasted random words from some buzzword dictionary
By "feminist" I mean the usual thing. See his website.
By "crypto-communist" I mean that he claims to hate communism now, particularly because he hates Stalin and the Soviet Union, but he sure did write a GNU manifesto about his Emacs commune. I guess he's probably not a literal communist any more, but he's a proud leftist.
>>null can be 1 if that's an invalid pointer due to alignment
This would be tricky, it has to compare equal to null pointers even of other types. I bet it only comes up on strange platforms.
Rust actually creates 1 pointers to zero-sized types (that never have to be dereferenced in hardware because they don't contain data, but can't be 0 because that'd break invariants):
>> &*Box::new(()) as *const ()
0x1
if your code assumes a null pointer is zero, the compiler is free to replace it with a highly optimized nasal demon
compiler devs have zero understanding of real world use cases and in their quest for better benchmarks versus each other continue to make more and more absurd "optimizations" by breaking normal but technically-per-4-4.3-§4.5-is-undefined code that allows them to just not emit anything you wrote. Compiler developers optimize out your checks for null if specifications-allowed reordering lets them make you use the null pointer before checking it, and therefore dropping the null check because dereferencing a null pointer is bad and so therefore you obviously won't ever have a null. How long until LLVM is kicking GCC in the dick and GCC fires back with this optimization to remove a third of all null checks as "ill-formed"?
My bet's on two years.
>if your code assumes a null pointer is zero
If you do that by using ! or comparing it to a literal 0 then it's required to work. There are other ways to get a zero, but would those come up in practice?
Compilers definitely do that shit, but I'm doubtful they'd do it in this case. Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough.
being called a "crypto-communist" by a mutt is a complement
>Stallman was always an extreme SJW leftist feminist
whoa, based
Stallman was also somebody that actually wrote software
>Microsoft failed
Look around. Does this seem like a world where Microsoft failed, or does it seem like a world where they got everything they ever wanted?
>Look around. Does this seem like a world where Microsoft failed
Failed in taking down Free Software, as in GPL software, which they worked overtime trying to do.
Now extreme wokeness is killing it instead, as the people (aka white guys) writing Free Software are spending their free time on other things, why would you spend it writing code for a community that is run by people who hate you.
>Same with FSF, it has been infested top to bottom by SJW feminists, and white guys who kept Free Software alive by spending their spare time writing software for free have left since they are being spat on by the people in FSF.
2/10 fanfic
They hated him because he told the truth.
>only Honza Hubicka
Nice FUD moron. I see more than one person here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=shortlog
>Same with FSF, it has been infested top to bottom by SJW feminists, and white guys who kept Free Software alive by spending their spare time writing software for free have left since they are being spat on by the people in FSF.
yeah...no. This is front page of FSF members only forum
>linus allows in rust
>it gets unmaintained in a few years after rust gets ditched for the new language of the week
>linus rips it out of linus
>linus now has an excuse for not allowing new hipster languages in linux
He doesn't need an excuse, he has had no problem saying "no" the past thirty years' worth of hipster languages.
He actually thinks Rust could be useful.
even so, if or when rust is finally ditched, it'll still get ripped out
Lol no.
This is a warrant canary
Linus, blink twice if you are in danger
I wonder how nobody questioned it when that gigantic crab held his throat between pincers.
the crab its not that big, its just that linus is very small
NO IT CAN'T BE TRUE MY ENTIRE PERSONALITY IS BASED AROUND BEING A L33T WEEB C LINUX USER WITHOUT IT IM NOTHING
Cope.
We're reaching levels of cope never before seen.
>...after rust gets ditched for the new language of the week
It will take at least 5 years before something remotely important for the Kernel is written in Rust, so hopefully the Rust trannies will have joined the 41% by then.
How old is Rust by now?
Seven years since 1.0
hi nimbor
>t-trust the plan
>Qinus
Dude you should be careful not to fricking OD on copium
I am a rustacean now
based. welcome to the club.
Everything eventually evolves into crab.
GCC-Rust is almost done
https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs
I am very excited for this. I'm on Gentoo and rustc just sucks.
It probably will break some packages for a while, but I imagine major ones will stop relying on rustc black magic code and fall in line with the standard set forth.
I remember seeing a picture few days ago about how it takes 10 minutes to compile Linux and 8 hours to compile Chromium.
Glad to see that issue is getting fixed!
how is NULL actually represented on the stack? is it just 0x00000000
Depends on the architecture, but yes most of the time it's actually just 0x0.
Allegedly some compilers just do #define NULL ((char *)0)
pointers are just integers with a candy coating in the first place
On typical platforms yes, but the standard doesn't require it. It says that a pointer defined with a literal "0" or "NULL" is a null pointer, and that a null pointer is unequal to a valid pointer, but not that a null pointer point to address zero. So the 0 can be a lie.
>null can be 1 if that's an invalid pointer due to alignment, and this is perfectly acceptable
>your programs WILL be optimized to the fastest possible nasal demon by trannie compiler writers
why are we using C again
I just mentioned in another thread how i rarely come across rust code on github.
How are you looking? If you're just following GitHub's own recommendations then those are heavily bubbled, I keep getting recommendations related to this one niche framework where I once commented on an issue.
Easy point of reference: how much Java do you come across? It's one of the most popular languages on GitHub but I never see any because I don't care about Java.
Tiobe is fake news. Anyone who worked one day in the industry knows JS is far more popular than C.
That's not TIOBE. Those are GitHub stats.
You are correct, I apologize for being a massive lying troony homosexual. I will ask Jamal to beat me extra hard after my daily anal rape.
>GitHub's own recommendations
Github do recommendations?
I've noticed the ecosystem has been improving a lot over the past year, which is a pleasant surprise.
>Rust only just recently (in the last two months) started supporting aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu as a first-class citizen
>After YEARS of not supporting it on anything other than i686 and x86_64
>Somehow this is a good thing
Hope you Black folk don't frequent /aig/. Worst case scenario, I guess I'm moving to Open or NetBSD.
>he doesn't think that BSD will eventually get oxidized
openbsd is the way.
Why would OpenBSD intentionally introduce security vulnerabilities? It's sad that people fail to comprehend that rust introduces a whole new class of vulns that C doesn't suffer from.
>Why would OpenBSD intentionally introduce security vulnerabilities?
Using C in the year 2022 is intentionally introducing security vulnerabilities.
>It's sad that people fail to comprehend that rust introduces a whole new class of vulns that C doesn't suffer from.
Oh you're one of these people. Which vulnerabilities? This is going to be good.
The suicide of 50% of your development team.
>He said the meme
Like clockwork.
Reminder that's less than the 100% of Cniles on IQfy who will commit suicide after reading OP's post.
Rust is like it's users, it's C++ presenting as a systems language. It is not, it is obscenely large and each new "feature" breaks stability. A rust program written 1 year ago looks outdated, a C program written 32 years ago looks fine.
Concurrency is literally a killer feature of Rust, as in, it kills any program that uses it.
>program saftey
Processors aren't even safe, good luck making rust safe. Notice that C++ has 100x more bugs thatn C, rust will simply have 100x more bugs than Go.
>it is obscenely large and each new "feature" breaks stability.
What are rust editions?
>a C program written 32 years ago looks fine.
Try this one weird trick to make your programming language look the same for 32 years. Just add nothing useful and don't fix any problems.
>Processors aren't even safe, good luck making rust safe
Why even bother using C then? Why don't you write everything in assembly?
>Notice that C++ has 100x more bugs thatn C, rust will simply have 100x more bugs than Go.
Rust actually is not bigger than golang. Golang has a heavier runtime.
>Why even bother using C then? Why don't you write everything in assembly?
Takes less time to code for it.
>Why don't you write everything in assembly?
C is portable, assembly isn't. And this is especially relevant because ARM64 and RISC-V are in the rise.
>C is portable, assembly isn't. And this is especially relevant because ARM64 and RISC-V are in the rise.
LOL nope. C is not portable in any real sense, as it will run 10x slower on ARM and RISCV. Assembly is always the answer. Sides I would very much like to take advantage of the quirks of each processor that I write for.
>C is not portable in any real sense, as it will run 10x slower on ARM and RISCV.
Steady on with the mind-bending drugs there! Most of the time (with recent compilers) you get the same sorts of speeds and code densities out of compilers as you'd get with hand-written assembly. This didn't used to be true, but the current gcc does a truly excellent job (at least on ARM; haven't looked in depth at RISC-V as that's not on the ASIC I care about).
The exceptions to that density/efficiency rule are mostly in situations where you know you can do funky things with registers normally reserved for things like the stack, which is horribly unsafe if you have interrupts turned on. Yes, you could teach the compiler that trick, but it's so specialized that it isn't really worth it; I've only seen it used well exactly once.
C isn't portable in the sense you want it to be. C itself is easy to port to new targets, that's true, since the primary goal C was designed for was to have a simple, easy to program compiler. Most of the spec is implementation defined which means "whatever is fastest/easiest" so you end up being able to make a small, simple compiler. Things like header files, source-ordering for struct fields, before recent editions of C, needing to declare all local variables at the top of functions make single pass compilers pretty straightforward. They went so far towards the goal of making a simple compiler that they actually went too far: B was their first attempt, and it ended up being too simple, making coding in B too complicated, so they made "B with types" and called it C.
Programs written in C, though, are not portable unless they have been carefully written from the beginning with that in mind, which usually means painstakingly converting after the fact by playing whack-a-mole with dozens of strange bugs on the new platform even after automated linting. Also usually meaning you've littered your code with manual IFDEFs for various platforms. Real C programs aren't even necessarily portable between different versions of the same compiler on the same system, this one burned me recently: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3934 Despite the coping in the bug title, it's not a miscompile, just a broken program.
>each new "feature" breaks stability. A rust program written 1 year ago looks outdated, a C program written 32 years ago looks fine.
Not really. Typical new features are either incremental or superficial. They let you do something you couldn't do at all before or they give you a better way to write something that doesn't conflict with old practice.
You'll be reading old code and thinking "ah, I can tell this is old code because it says assert!(x == 3) instead of assert_eq!(x, 3)". But does that stop anyone from understanding it? Does it stop the code from compiling on newer versions? Does it have to be proactively fixed? No, no, and no. It doesn't hurt.
I write code that works on years-old versions and it's fine.
>each new "feature" breaks stability
which is why all projects since 1.0 are backwards compatible...
I've been compiling on or for arm64 for years and it has always worked just fine.
For me, whenever it compiles, the application doesn't work. When it compiles, because sometimes it just fails because frick you. I don't know if it's a moron crate developer problem or a rust language problem, but a handy pneumonic if you forget is "If it ain't Tier 1, it ain't gonna run."
Well, that depends on what "doesn't work" means. People are using Rust on various BSDs, which are Tier 3 even.
>pneumonic
The only time when I've had issues compiling for arm is with a project that used zeroMQ. Whoever wrote the crate had it link with some thing (I don't remember what) that wasn't found arm.
there is no "first-class citizen" support
there is tier 1 support, and the difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is that all changes are automatically checked against tier 1
if you want to promote your arch from 2 to 1, provide dedicated hardware for testing
>mit license
>cuck license
so there's no reason not to use bsd then
at least they have proper vertical integration
You can already build Linux with a permissively-licensed compiler, adding another one doesn't change anything
https://github.com/rust-gcc
go to help 'em
What's this mean? Can't use GCC to compile? Don't understand a lot of this thread tbh other than rust being a c competitor.
Lol gentoo is finished
Now itll take 6 hours to compile the kerbel on a thread ripper
Just don't include the rust modules moron.
>initial Rust enablement code
even the wording is troony, is Linus trolling us?
no, he's just cucked. couldn't stand up to the woke.
Please explain what it means to "stand up to the woke"
Nightmare mode: Don't use the n-word
welp... i guess i have to fork the kernel then
Those troons work for the CIA subverting all flavors of communalism
In recent years, Linux has finally become a normie operating system. We are still at the peak, but this is the sign that good times are pretty much over. People have noticed a good thing and are trying to improve it by forcing memes on it. This is always the case, but once normies get a hold, the memes become exponential moronic.
Literally fake news.
Which *BSD do I switch to once this shit starts? I figure FreeBSD for my desktop and notebook, then maybe OpenBSD for my NAS.
>OS kernel finally gets support for a memory safe language
>Get butthurt and think you need to switch to another OS written in an unsafe language
What is wrong with you morons lmao
>OS kernel finally gets support for a language whose memory safety has to be disabled to make it suitable for writing systems software, whose toolchain is fricked beyond all comprehension and is locked up behind proprietary or cuck license compilers, and which hasn't been finalized and constantly drops or changes major features
Hyuck hyuck hyuck, what could possibly go wrong? Hyuck.
>memory safety has to be disabled to make it suitable for writing systems software
Way to prove you've never actually written kernel patches. A lot of it is relatively high level code. The most restrictive requirements in drivers are that everything has to be OOM safe and can't include floating point, Rust handles those easily though.
>whose toolchain is fricked beyond all comprehension
The guy working on the kernel integration is unironically fixing this.
>locked up behind proprietary or cuck license compilers
Just fork it and put GPL on it. We know you won't, GPL shills are the true cucks.
>which hasn't been finalized and constantly drops or changes major features
Literally doesn't happen, frick off with your FUD.
>is locked up behind proprietary or cuck license compilers
How is it any different to *BSDs? They all ditched GCC, LMAO.
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. Cheers, Linux. You were fun while you lasted.
Just make some sort of ide that stops people from doing bad pointers with a static analyzer or whatever.
No point in using this barren bloated shiet.
>GCC bros is over
How you compile Rust? LLVM?
Rust (rustc) has it's own compiler, it doesn't use LLVM, clang, or GCC
But rustc uses LLVM you mong
GCC became mostly irrelevant when stallman started demanding they stop implementing features because closed source companies might use them. Then it became fully irrelevant when it switched to the cancerous GPL3
>stop implenting features
GCC is the most bloated compiler that ever existed, what are you even talking about.
The bloat is completely because stallman pressured them into crippling the plugin API to force users to upstream more patches. They could have had a modular design similar to LLVM a long time ago, but stallman didn't want it
It infects any other code they would link with the compiler
>It infects any other code they would link with the compiler
No, it does not.
>stallman this
>stallman that
>source: my ass
I don't know how much of the bloat can be blamed on it but that's something Stallman openly and deliberately did, yeah
libgccjit solves a lot of these problems.
>Then it became fully irrelevant when it switched to the cancerous GPL3
How is that any relevant? It's not like compilers are used in tivoized devices, and they also allowed a license to allow compilation of proprietary software.
>and they also allowed a license to allow compilation of proprietary software.
*They also added an exception to make software compiled with GCC not obligated to comply with the GPL and LGPL
Based. Still using GCC.
I'm surprised that LLVM never bothered with a CAA, LOL.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18_0Hog_eSwES8lKwf7WJal3yBwwcYfvPu1yCfZnTcek/edit#gid=668482117
Time to learn Rust I presume.
god damn it
rust takes like 50 years to compile a console program
it says "POSSIBLY"
I don't know what this word means for you but for me it doesn't mean it will be 100% done.
They need help:
https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/wiki/Frequently-Asked-Questions
I don't care much to Rust, but now they are trying to infect the kernel. So, we need a GCC Frontend to not need 2 compilers to compile the kernel.
this project is broken because they plan on not supporting 2015 or 2018 edition.
Man I dunno. GCC contains a Go compiler too and that project just died. Why would it be different with the Rust compiler when Rust is way more complicated and evolves way more quickly?
Nobody uses Go except Google.
Everybody was switching to Go before the Rust craze started.
eg https://eng.uber.com/data-race-patterns-in-go/
completely different use cases
the point is that if the rust craze hadn't started, we'd be talking about the go craze rn
not really, the go craze was companies cargo culting google
Wide platform support is more important for Rust than for Go, I could see that helping it.
It might not need immense manpower. Another Rust compiler, mrustc, is written by one single guy, apparently in his free time. It's not a complete implementation, but it can bootstrap rustc and every year he bumps up its support.
GCC-RS was basically dead until Rustaceans began infecting the kernel.
>project is dead
>last change: 20 days ago
Nice FUD Black person.
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=tree;f=gcc/go;hb=HEAD
>that project just died
[Citation needed]
IIRC the GCC Go compiler was created by the Go team itself (to have multiple implementations)