Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9

[presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 876 bytes --]

Bushnell is right.  There's nothing wrong with having heavy duty
optimizations.  Just because you have to use them with caution
doesn't mean they shouldn't be available.  The problem of compiler
complexity is a problem for those developing/maintaining it, not
necessarily for those using it, modulo compile time and you can
get some of that back by backing off the optimization level.
If I had to support GCC I'ld go nuts but as long as someone else is
willing to, why not?  Luckily dhog doesn't have to worry as much
about pulling his hair out.

Having a license that encourages gobs of people to work on
components of the system is nice.  I wish we had such a license
to find out if it is indeed the license that causes that
and not some inherent attraction of the code or system.
A pity that we're held hostage by a lawyer.

Plan 9 held hostage - day 4232

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2937 bytes --]

From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:20:36 GMT
Message-ID: <87664jxrsw.fsf@becket.becket.net>

edorman@san.rr.com (Eric Dorman) writes:

> IMHO the real deal is whether it's fast enough to do what you want
> it to do.  No doubt 8c would benefit if it had the same zillions 
> of both paid and unpaid hours gcc has, but that's not saying 
> anything earth-shattering; for this particular app it does reasonably
> well, IMO, given the level of effort put into it.  If somebody 
> wants 8c to go faster then they are welcome to turn the crank 
> to make it happen....

Sure, GCC has available way more person-hours to try and get every
last bit of improvement out of the generated code, and 8c just doesn't
have that much time available.  I think Dan Cross is entirely right in
suggesting that such speed improvements might not be worth the effort
it would take to put them into 8c.

But that's only an argument against adding gobs of hairy optimization
to 8c; it's not an argument for why GCC is somehow *bad* for having
such optimizations.  Indeed, it's really an argument for why dropping
8c is the best thing to do!  But then, 8c does really have a great
advantage in speed-of-compilation.  So both compilers are doing useful
things.

Incidentally, the reason GCC has gobs of people working on it is
pretty darn simple.  It's because GCC has a license which encourages
gobs of people to work on it.

Thomas