On 27/05/2023 20:16, Dave Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2023 18:44:41 +0200 David Brown via Gcc
<gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
On 26/05/2023 17:49, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
I don't like to argue with idiots: they beat me with experience!
Stefan
Stefan, you are clearly not happy about the /free/ compiler you
are using, and its /free/ documentation (which, despite its flaws,
is better than I have seen for most other compilers).
When the flaws continue to stack up as things get provably worse over
time, at some point you need to stop patting yourself on the back,
riding on the coattails of your past successes, and get to work
making things right.
I think your idea of "proof" might differ from that of everyone else.
The GCC developers are entirely aware that their tools have bugs and
scope for improvement, but anyone who has followed the project for any
length of time can see it has continually progressed in many ways.
There are regularly minor regressions, and occasionally serious issues -
but the serious issues get fixed.
This is open source software. If newer versions were "getting provably
worse over time", then people would simply fork earlier versions and use
them. That's what happens in projects where a significant number of
users or developers feel the project is moving in the wrong direction.
At the very least, GCC documentation is HORRIBLE, as this previous
thread proves.
Now I am sure that you don't know what "proof" is. In regard to
documentation, this thread proves that GCC's documentation is not
perfect, that the GCC developers know this, that they ask people for
suggestions for improvement, and that they keep track of suggestions or
complaints so that they can be fixed when time and resources allow.
If the branch is rotten and splintered then maybe it's time to get
off that branch and climb onto another one.
Feel free to do so.
Remember, these are people with /no/ obligation to help you.
... and it often shows!
My experience, like that of most people (judging from the mailing lists
and the bugzilla discussions I have read), is different - those who
treat the GCC developers politely and with the respect due any fellow
human, get a great deal of help. They might not always agree on what
should be changed, but even then you can generally come out of the
discussion with an understanding of /why/ they cannot or will not change
GCC as you'd like.
But - like everyone else - the GCC developers can quickly lose interest
in helping those who come across as rude, demanding, unhelpful and
wilfully ignorant.
Some do gcc development as voluntary contributions, others are paid
to work on it - but they are not paid by /you/. And none are paid
to sit and listen to your tantrums.
So is this proof of the technical and intellectually bankruptcy of
the open source development model, or...?
No, it is not.
If nobody wants to have detailed discussions about the technical
workings of a very serious tool that millions are relying on day in
and day out, what is this mailing list FOR, exactly?
It /is/ for such discussions. This thread has not been a discussion -
it has been driven by someone who preferred to yell and whine rather
than discuss, and insisted on continuing here rather than filing bug
reports in the right places. The GCC developers prefer to work /with/
the users in finding out how to make the toolchain better - /that/ is
what the mailing lists are for.
