From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.107.15.9 with SMTP id x9mr2119588ioi.27.1519931345446; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:09:05 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.3.237 with SMTP id f100mr139203otf.6.1519931344856; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:09:04 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!e10no624503itf.0!news-out.google.com!a25ni2225itj.0!nntp.google.com!e10no624502itf.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 11:09:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5b6d496b-a375-41c7-bac6-01a1b20c3137@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <5a8e17dc-1d52-4393-be58-8881e741c3a4@googlegroups.com> <1190543753.541369961.154390.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <6700ecea-cdfe-4c73-88ec-d98bafd9151b@googlegroups.com> <1288175616.541375784.664064.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <2babf92b-161e-4e59-9877-6de5466a6683@googlegroups.com> <95718cf6-c89c-4fb9-bd6a-5abb1146124e@googlegroups.com> <11be6e36-7041-4346-859e-876f0a19ee6b@googlegroups.com> <5b6d496b-a375-41c7-bac6-01a1b20c3137@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Embeddinator-4000 begetting an Ada-cross-platform future? From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 19:09:05 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 9193 X-Received-Body-CRC: 237668485 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50762 Date: 2018-03-01T11:09:04-08:00 List-Id: Dan'l Miller wrote: > > Anyone can have another open-source Ada compiler whenever so desire:=20 > > 1) Fork the FSF copy, so as to (apparently?) have the proper license.= =20 Shark8 wrote: > Why? This will inherit *ALL* of GNAT's flaws and limitations. Hence the aforementioned ASIS automation-assisted accumulation of refactori= ngs. Grind the concrete up into powder again; shape that soft clay quite d= ifferently. Dan'l Miller wrote: > > 2) Put an LLVM backend on it. Either modernize Dragon Egg itself or co= nceptually repeat the entirety of Dragon Egg's old work differently in a mo= re-modern release of GNAT and GCC.=20 Shark8 wrote: > You could do that with a non-GCC compiler.=20 Of course. For example, one of today's proprietary Ada compilers could do = that. (And if, for some reason, they wanted to change their business model= , they could optionally open-source their new LLVM-backended Ada compiler.) Dan'l Miller wrote: > > 3) Indeed, even ASIS it to semi-automatedly drastically refactor/overha= ul the Ada code in which GNAT is written. Even do this gratuitously for no= reason to inhibit merging it back into FSF easily (unless someone else dev= elops the anti-refactorer to recursively unwind the deeply-accumulated dive= rgent ASIS-assisted refactorings).=20 Shark8 wrote: > This seems a bit convoluted; I'm not sure I get your meaning, or purpose = here. Instead of starting from a blank text editor like you apparently did, one c= ould start with GNAT and then drastically drastically overhaul it top to bo= ttom. The biggest downside would be the derivative-work result couldn't be= any license other than GMGPL (or worse GPL). Dan'l Miller wrote: > > 4) Always contribute all such evolution in GPL-compliant ways, such as = on GitHub.=20 Shark8 wrote: > *SIGH* -- There's the start of a MIT-licensed compiler, Byron, I have on = GitHub. -- https://github.com/OneWingedShark/Byron -- but there's only one = contributor.=20 My step 4 was predicated on the prior steps. Of course, if you start with = a blank text editor instead of GNAT, then yes, you can contribute the open-= source Ada compiler under some other license than GMGPL (or GPL). Btw, awe= some initiative & effort! There was a time 3 decades ago where Andrew Tann= enbaum was at the same point with Minix, which Linus Torvalds then extended= into Linux. Big things can start with a single passionate individual acti= ng alone (assuming the Andrew Tannenbaum didn't have all his grad students = helping him out immensely). > > 5) Go merrily on your way, never looking back at FSF (or at AdaCore).= =20 > Why even look to them to begin with?=20 When starting with a blank text editor as you apparently have, then correct= , you want to clean-room your design so that you don't (even subconsciously= ) mimic anything in GNAT, so that you don't create a (GMGPLed or GPLed) der= ivative work. But for the technique that I enumerated in this thread, one = would intimately critique each and every design decision in GNAT to perhaps= drastically alter it via the aforementioned ASIS-assisted refactorings. Dan'l Miller wrote: > > The big problem is never begetting the open-source repository itself fo= r a 2nd open-source Ada compiler.=20 Shark8 wrote: > Objectively false; see above.=20 > The big problem is that there's only one contributor, and he's disgusted = with his lack of progress.=20 False in the world in which your logic is operating, but true outside of yo= ur start-from-a-blank-text-editor world. (I am using modal logic's definit= ion of possible-world logic there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_= world ) Using the technique that I enumerated, a quite-different-than(-exc= ept-for-license)-GNAT Ada open-source compiler can be squirted out as the n= umerous accumulations of the ASIS-assisted refactoring in probably less tha= n one person-year effort. Perhaps 2 person-year effort to radically set a = GNAT-derivative-work on an entirely different foundation of aggressive rede= sign. Dan'l Miller wrote: > > The big problem is how to fund an open-source business model. (Hence, = why closed-source business models arise for entirely-different not-GPLed so= urce-code bases.)=20 Shark8 wrote: > Not really -- there's plenty that can be done with (a) support contracts,= and/or (b) specialized/additional tooling.=20 If scraping up sufficient funding is so easy, then scrape up $500,000 to hi= re 5 more developers for your OneWingedShark Ada compiler so that you aren'= t the lone contributor. Or likewise, if wooing corporate subsidization is = so easy, then go beg at one or more Fortune 1000 corporations who frequentl= y contribute staff time to open-source repositories that are not their own = (e.g., IBM). Yes, once you own the means of production so to speak, then, = yes, you can milk & milk & milk that cash cow. The problem is scraping up = enough hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to write the cash cow i= n the first place, when starting from a blank text-editor. Hence, my point= of don't limit ourselves as a community to only fresh starts with a blank = text editor, such as your own laudable effort. You are one genome. My afo= rementioned list of steps are another genome. Survival of the species is b= est via diverse genomes, so that at least one survives the rigors of natura= l selection. To everyone other than you & your fellow contributors, please= think of what a drastically-rejiggered GNAT would look like (other than th= e one immutable chiseled-in-stone part: GMGPL or GPL). Dan'l Miller wrote: > Conversely, I would pay relatively-small-but-still-substantial amounts of= money (less than $1000 per year per seat) for a proprietary closed-source = Ada toolchain so that I could write both nonportable/SDK-specific UI/UX and= portable backend-processing libraries all in Ada on iOS, MacOS, and Androi= d. =20 Shark8 wrote: > Turbo Pascal proved that a company could thrive by targeting small-busine= sses and hobbyists with relatively cheap compilers.=20 Well, yes, but back in 1983 the bar was set very low though. Philipe Kahn'= s TurboPascal only needed to be better than Microsoft's BASICA or GWBASIC = =E2=80=A2interpreters=E2=80=A2 (and better than Waterloo BASIC =E2=80=A2int= erpreters=E2=80=A2 largely only on fellow-Canadian Commodore) and better th= an UCSD p-System Pascal's p-code =E2=80=A2virtual machine=E2=80=A2. All ex= isting (incongruent-)competitors were sitting-duck targets. Had Waterloo/W= ATCOM released a far-more-expensive set of impressively-optimizing compiler= s corresponding to their interpreters a few years sooner (or had Microsoft = bought the rights to Lattice Semiconductor's C compiler a few years sooner)= , Philipe Kahn's TurboPascal marketspace would have been shriveled to the s= ize of a raisin. People didn't buy TurboPascal because it was Pascal; they= (and I) bought it because it was a =E2=80=A2compiler-to-machine-code=E2=80= =A2 of any language above assembly language and we couldn't afford Digital = Research's/Intel's PL/M compiler. We didn't buy TurboPascal because it was= Pascal; we bought it because it was Turbo (and cheap).