Re: [dev] Moving scc
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:15:11AM +0200, hiro wrote: > is C++ worse than glibc? (i would weight also by how much you can avoid it...) c++ with its libsdc++ is orders of magnitude worse than the glibc with a c compiler. It's like comparing lynx/links to chromium/firefox. Thx for the troll btw, :). -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] Moving scc
is C++ worse than glibc? (i would weight also by how much you can avoid it...)
Re: [dev] Moving scc
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 03:02:55PM +0200, Quentin Rameau wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi, > > > I did already say that, but remember that C compilers are being kind > > of phased out by force: > > > >- many "standard"/critical applications and even system components > > are forcing modern c++. > > For example? Said that already, but recetnly I did rebuild a linux from _my_ scratch distro: - the linux compiler: you still can use gcc 4.7.4 which is bootstrapable from C, if not using arm64 backend. With an arm64 backend, you must use a "recent c++ mandatory gcc". - fontconfig uses hashes code generated by gperf (c++) - the whole GPU shader complex is c++ (in mesa and with that insanity which is llvm) - a modern web renderer (gecko/webkit/blink), did not build that in my distro, I use links/lynx. office (which I did not build): - a vector drawing app: inkscape - a page layout app: scribus - office suite: libre office Many components are running behind the fast evolving c++ standard (c++17)... which forces to use a recent c++ compiler. Previous C bootsrapable c++ c++98) compilers won't do. As I said, it's nasty and insidious. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] Moving scc
> Hi, Hi, > I did already say that, but remember that C compilers are being kind > of phased out by force: > >- many "standard"/critical applications and even system components > are forcing modern c++. For example? >- modern c++ can only be compiled with a modern c++ > compiler/runtime. Yes, as strange as it sounds, you need a C++ compiler to compile C++. > It's very sad, but above all it's way more insidious than the desktop > world take over from microsoft/apple... > > The only real cure: get back those apps and components in the simple > C realm. > > EZ to say... :( This is what we do.
Re: [dev] Moving scc
Hi, I did already say that, but remember that C compilers are being kind of phased out by force: - many "standard"/critical applications and even system components are forcing modern c++. - modern c++ can only be compiled with a modern c++ compiler/runtime. It's very sad, but above all it's way more insidious than the desktop world take over from microsoft/apple... The only real cure: get back those apps and components in the simple C realm. EZ to say... :( -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] Moving scc
plumb: can't send message: couldn't find destination for message
Re: [dev] Moving scc
> [1] gopher://bitreich.org > [2] gopher://bitreich.org/1/scm/scc/log.gph sed 'gopher:/,https://gopherproxy.meulie.net,' sucks, but works. s.
Re: [dev] Moving scc
Hi Roberto, On 9 August 2017 at 21:12, Roberto E. Vargas wrote: > A lot of different things happened since that moment, some of > them in my life, and some of them in the suckless community. > Due to these changes, I don't feel scc as a suckless project > anymore, and as project founder, main contributor (I think > I wrote about 95% of the code) and maintainer, I have taken > the decision of moving scc away from suckless. No objection. I know that suckless.org was able to provide your project some kind of infrastructure, however in terms of visibility and traction you didn't display scc very prominently on suckless.org yet, hence I guess most of suckless software users didn't really notice that scc existed at all. So moving it to some other umbrella organisation is no problem for us, also because it is defacto your sole project. > After this mail, the new official community where scc is going > to be developed is bitreich [1], and you can find the new > repository in [2]. We will move scc to oldgit.suckless.org in its current state present at suckless org and mentioned its new URL. > [1] gopher://bitreich.org > [2] gopher://bitreich.org/1/scm/scc/log.gph Btw. bare in mind, that putting scc behind gopher won't increase its visibility or traction by any means imho, rather the opposite. I understand the motivation by adopting gopher, but nevertheless I highly encourage you guys (incl. 20h) to also(!) provide your content via http(s). You are locking yourselve up in some parallel universe, if most people will end up using gopher web frontends to browse your content ;) It feels a bit odd and highly sectarian, if one _only_ relies on gopher. Best regards, Anselm
Re: [dev] Moving scc
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:12:45PM +0200, Roberto E. Vargas wrote: > After this mail, the new official community where scc is going > to be developed is bitreich [1], and you can find the new > repository in [2]. Sad to see it go but I will still follow its development if I find the time! Cheers, Silvan
