cracks open the "REFERENCE MANUAL FOR THE Ada(r) PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE"
looks like Ada83 specification has address clause though, which can effectively be used as a pointer when combined with System.Address / 'Address attribute.
Also has access type, but you can't pass access type around all willy-nilly-like without unchecked_access (added in 95?).
C pointers are more flexible though, that much is true.
edit, almost forgot: the main downside of Ada < 95 is you don't get function pointers, or import/export pragma
For google, it's an open and shut case. Look up how they force numerous other companies to collude with them using their open handset aliance contract. They explicitly prohibit "forking android" which they consider creating a non-android OS with an android app loader as an "android fork".
Needs a rename to be taken seriously, It's vague (prohibits "unfriendliness"(what does that even mean?)), Not needed (gcc existed for over 30 years so far without one), allows anti-GPL companies (see latest RHEL upstream source portal incident) running the steering committee to decide what the vague language actually means without disclosing what financial interests are behind the decisions to shut down discussions.
You’re inverting what is written in the CoC and reporting that here. The CoC does not prohibit unfriendliness.
I am guessing that the reason “be friendly and patient” is in the CoC is because projects like GCC are having trouble attracting new maintainers. As far as I can tell, the project is in trouble—for a long time, GCC was the only game in town, and now that people could just as easily decide to contribute to LLVM/Clang instead, GCC needs to take some effort to make sure that it still has maintainers long-term.
The idea that a CoC “not needed” doesn’t seem credible, I think you’d need to provide some kind of reasoning to support that argument. You haven’t provided any reasoning besides “GCC existed for 30 years without one”, and that argument doesn’t make any logical sense. The landscape has changed, there are competitors (LLVM), and some of GCC’s previous decisions at the highest level have made it somewhat hostile to contributors—something which the project can no longer afford to do.
> allows anti-GPL companies (see latest RHEL upstream source portal incident) running the steering committee to decide what the vague language actually means without disclosing what financial interests are behind the decisions to shut down discussions.
This seems like an unreasonable and invalid complaint to me. It hypothesizes that the CoC will be wielded as a weapon to achieve some kind of “anti-GPL” corporate goals, or something to that effect.
If anything, I’ve only seen, in the GCC project, “pro-GPL” abuses, where Stallman has directed GCC developers to make technical decisions not based on technical merits, but based on the desire of Stallman to advance the FSF’s pro-GPL goals politically. I’m talking about stuff like having a serializable IR here—technical decisions which make a lot of sense, but which the politics of GCC quashed in order to support the pro-GPL mission.
And here LLVM is, with its serializable IR, and pro-corporate licensing scheme, taking away mindshare from GCC.
The CoC is not really a pro-corporate tool any more than it is a pro-GPL tool. It is a tool for fixing problems in a community, and the GCC project needs to put a lot of thought and care into how it runs its community, because the long-term viability of that community is now in jeopardy. The CoC is there to improve the community—and if you think CoCs should have more detail, that’s something that can be fixed over time—rules tend to get more detailed as they are modified and updated.
I'm confused by this whole thing, do the mods not realize how easily they can be replaced? Without any leadership or strategy moving forward this "movement" is doomed. Who decided the winning strategy was to basically quit? What are they hoping happens here, reddit opens up negotiations? LOL, you're handing them the keys to your subreddits DERP. Pretty much par for reddit mods though so why am i expecting some kind of cohesive plan? I'll see myself out now.
That's going to be a hard NOPE for me dawg; UEFI is an atrocity, go look at the tianocore source if you want to think otherwise. Just because it replaces traditional boot loaders does not make it better or easier. Hopefully the chinese risc-v offerings are less subserviant to the wintel agenda than this.
Thank you, anyone claiming otherwise is fucking sheltered. They never bothered to opened up a regular shard other than seige perilous which had extra difficulties cranked up so nobody bothered, and other games filled the gap (until those too were banned).
I'm still using xquartz (https://www.xquartz.org) on current machines - with the last release just a few weeks ago. But it's only for retro stuff. Other than that, X11 was never anything why I would buy a Mac for.
1) was a problem in the early days, but what they poured into clang did eventually pay off. It's a reasonable compiler with tons of vendor extensions, many being Apple's, these days. Clang also served as a source for GCC to take new features from. Good to have some competition.
2) XQuartz took a while, but is doing well.
3) was a big one in making upstream wine not work. with wine32on64 you can sure still pull the pinball party trick, but building that thing takes too much.
4) was specifically SIP for me, especially when they started making updates break with system changes. The ntfs-3g automount thing has always relied on replacing mount_ntfs [which is, by the way, not the proper way to make an fs on a Mac -- there's some filesystem bundle business], and now it's too much of a pain to still access the Windows drive.
looks like Ada83 specification has address clause though, which can effectively be used as a pointer when combined with System.Address / 'Address attribute. Also has access type, but you can't pass access type around all willy-nilly-like without unchecked_access (added in 95?).
C pointers are more flexible though, that much is true.
edit, almost forgot: the main downside of Ada < 95 is you don't get function pointers, or import/export pragma