Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

FPC 16-bit (Announce)

posted by marcov, 16.05.2013, 21:19

> Clang + LLVM doesn't support Windows very well. (There are "experimental"
> MinGW builds, but not for x64, IIRC.) Even two of the others (MSVC, Intel)
> don't support Itanium anymore, so they're arguably getting worse! And of
> course, it has to be said: MSVC, Intel, Embarcadero are very very
> expensive!
Yes. No doubt about that. (though the itanium bit is a stretch, it is pretty much dead for new software development)

> My point is that they may be big, but they're not infallible, and they're
> certainly not universally useful (only pandering to a small niche ... with
> big pockets, presumably).
No. Among them they are 99.9% of the software tools usage. Maybe another 9.

That's why they are great.

> > Yes. But I didn't say that you can't write anything useful in 500kb. I
> > merely contested your statement that you can't write anything useful
> > unless
> > you can do it in 500kb
>
> I didn't mean it like that. I'm not that naive. But if you (or your
> compiler) can't fit an extremely useful amount of code in 500 kb, you're
> sunk.
No. Since I might simply use another compiler if I had an extremely tight budget.

And then, suddenly the whole 500kb limit is totally arbitrary and reveals your dos roots. I daily program microcontrollers (I/O slaves based on Microchip) and my largest program there is 13kb. (with gcc btw, +/-2000 lines of C, libraries and headers excluded)

> Be careful what you wish for. By download statistics alone, Windows far far
> surpasses everything else.
True.

> Then comes Mac. Then much much further is Linux.
Still mostly true.

> Everything else is mostly ignored (including FreeBSD). If certain parts of
> the commercial world weren't so anti-GPLv3, FreeBSD wouldn't exist
> anymore.
Wrong, since GPLV3 is fairly recent. FreeBSD has a strong following among ISPs. It is not a client OS, so comparing downloads is a bit strange. (since that is an end-user centric metric).

> > Or just brand one golden version on one platform every 5 years. Save it,
> > and use it to jumpstart when necessary.
>
> Apparently (with very few exceptions) no one does that.
I think only Debian is fanatic about it.

> > > It must be bad because nobody supports DJGPP (32-bit) anymore.
> >
> > Compared to what well supported 16-bit open source compiler?
>
> I don't understand the question.
>
> My point was that "32-bit POSIX isn't enough anymore."

DJGPP is POSIX nowadays?

> So it's not 640 kb,
> it's not stability, it's not lack of tools, and it's not lack of
> free/libre: people just don't freaking care anymore.
Well, or simply think that the burden/baton should pass to actual users? Maybe there is a nice task for you there :-)

> > That is like refusing to use a microwave because rubbing sticks together
> > gets it done too.
>
> Not refusing the hardware, refusing the requirements!

Rubbing two microwaves together doesn't produce fire! The old requirements were perfectly fine! I rubbed sticks together for years just fine!

Whatever gets the food cooked :-D :-D

> > Yes. ALL FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR TIMES !
>
> What requirements changed?

The balance that hardware like memory makes in the total cost of software development. Hourly programmer rate / unit memory.

> > Bollocks. Even on LLVM's main targets, gcc still beats LLVM.
>
> Only in very very minor ways (see below).
Their PR wasn't about matching GCC, it was about passing it, leaving it in the dust.

Even if you buy your minor ways (I don't), it is still quite a shortfall.

> No, it's still vibrant and ongoing. IBM recently contributed a bunch of
> patches for PowerPC and System Z. It's only approx. 7-15% slower there than
> GCC.
>
> It's not overall performance that is a problem but the lack of existing cpu
> backend support (and pre-existing code that assumed nothing else would ever
> exist).
It's a fail overall. They judged gcc on overall principles, so they will be judged on overall principles.

> Apple, IBM, Intel (not ICC), Embarcadero, FreeBSD, Minix all use and
> support it. There's probably more groups than that, obviously. It's far
> from dying.
All those wins are on license, not on technical grounds. So....

> Yes, even
> your beloved Delphi is rumored to be migrating to LLVM. Then, worse
> performance or not, you're stuck! Enjoy your upgrade!
Nope. The so called nextgen compiler is still very incompatible (the iOS XE4 recently released is based on it).

This because it does more than just LLVM. It also tries to reinvent the language on .NET/Java footings, including immutable strings, meaning all string routines need to be reviewed/rewritten.

If Embarcadero continue on this course, I'll probably have a few years left on my XE3, and then migrate either to MSVC or FPC.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 443 users online (0 registered, 443 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum