For a significant portion of time Python was funded by Google, Meta and Facebook and maybe some other corps.
Zig doesn’t have any serious adoption in the industry yet but if/when it does I’d expect corps to be hiring the language devs.
JS is a consortium but it’s filled primarily with Google and Apple engineers.
Same goes for C/C++ lot of Apple, MS and Google engineers.
Elixir I’m not sure about. Rust was largely turns out employed by Amazon until the most recent culling.
It’s not surprising. This is technically difficult work and if the language is important to a corp they’ll hire the maintainers. There needs to be a funding source and in the industry that typically means a for profit company paying the salary of the people moving things forward. Indeed - it’s one of the things Rust is struggling with for now.
They fund it cos they want to use it for their thing. Does not mean they own them. They are all community governed projects.
Rust, Julia, Typescript on the other hand are governed by Corps. They are not community projects.
Elixir is BDFL (good one) last I checked. Dont know if they became a company or foundation.
Zig is for all purposes a good example of community governed project. Itcs in production at Bun and TigerBeetle. But also, its not yet production ready (v1.0). So their current trend make sense.
But I could've been wrong with JS and C. Not sure about their governance now that I think about it.
This is patently wrong on at least several of these.
Rust is explicitly a community project having been born out of a non-profit, and if you’re discounting corp-funded but community driven that’s definitely Rust. If not, please indicate the corp that’s driving Rust.
Zig is a BDFL project like Python was (not sure how it is these days) - community contributes sure, but Andrew makes the big calls and directional changes.
> Rust is explicitly a community project having been born out of a non-profit, and if you’re discounting corp-funded but community driven that’s definitely Rust. If not, please indicate the corp that’s driving Rust.
Non-profit doesn't mean community project. Rust foundation is a non-profit 501-c(6). Which is a non-profit category for trade unions and stuff. It's not a charity categorization. It's run by corporate members and works only for the members which are - surprise corporates. A community member like you or me doesn't have any say (Unless you have $325k per year to pay) - https://rustfoundation.org/get-involved/. This is the same case with Linux foundation as well. It's NOT a community project. The only difference is, Linus has more say cos trademark is on him.
PSF and Zig foundation are charity / commuinty projects cos they are non-profit 501 c(3). It's categorised as public charity or for the good of people. You and I can have more say in it. NOT THE CASE WITH RUST.
>Which language would you classify as not corp owned?
I would like to respectfully disagree with you there as well.
The above was the context. I was replying to this which opened the conversation.
Not to mention, end users and consumers don't get a say in the corp funded projects. Everything works as long as it aligns with the goals of the corp. Not otherwise.
FreeFileSync's Flathub flatpak, still live, has been mentioned in another subreddit to have had contributions from the same username that was promoting this PPA on Github (3ddruck12). He has been banned from Github.
From what I know of -ffast-math and can read from the docs for *_fast. I am not convinced that the *_fast intrinsics do _everything_ -ffast-math allows. They seem focused around algebraic equivalence (a/b is equivalent to a*(1/b) ) and assumptions of finite math. There's a few other things that -ffast-math allows like ignoring certain errors, ignoring the existence of signed zero, ignoring signalling NaN handling, ignoring SIGFPE handling, etc...
Yes, because many of the traditional "fast math" assumptions are definitely not something that should be hidden behind an attractive option like that. In particular assuming the nonexistence of NaNs is essentially never anything but a ticket to the UB land.
You can do DOS target software with Rust... it's pretty limited and the tooling around it isn't nearly complete enough to make anything easy. That said, if you want to make something akin to a Zork text mode game or similar there's that... you can also use ANSI escape codes as another possibility for CP437 text mode interaction.
Yeah I've always written this off as a fun side project for a group of people but after seeing consistent updates and improvements over the last several years I've been so impressed by how far this project has been going.
Note the binaries are not specific to the kernel, so anything built for Genode will work on Genode systems of compatible ISA irrespective of kernel.
I am surprised to hear 2008, I could swear they have been active far longer. Maybe I am conflating it with TUD:OS.
They are indeed quite active. Just see their backlog of release notes. They release 4 times a year, on the clock, and always document what they've done.
Linux didn't win because it was GPL'd, it won because it was the only real alternative back in '92. The BSDs were all caught up in the moronic SCO lawsuits of the time, otherwise we'd all be using FreeBSD or some other 386BSD variant today instead of Linux. The GPL was a nice bonus but it isn't the real secret sauce that has powered Linux's growth, it was mostly good timing.
That doesn't mean that I'd rather see some form of copyleft in place (like the MPLv2) or at least a licence with some kind of patent protection baked in (like the Apache 2.0), the X11/MIT licences are extremely weak against patent trolls
other licenses being more sane doesn't imply MIT is _insane_ per se. It's just not a very sane option for cooperation and has a very real posibility of driving someone insane. Imagine working on redoxos for years with your friends and then Microsoft takes your work, rebrands it as Windows 19, completely steals all of the market from you and silences you through legal pressure without even crediting your work. All of this is very much possible and similar scenarios have happened before.
I am not native speaker but saying something is more sane doesn't mean the person means/thinks other option is insane (which is the extreme on the scale).
It can mean both of the options might be sane (reasonable) one is just more reasonable. It might also mean both of the options are insane (unreasonable) one is just less so.
None of the competition on the embedded space of FOSS operating systems, including Linux Foundation Zephyr, makes use of GPL.
Unfortunely the license is seen as tainted by all businesses, and plenty of OSes are already seen as Linux alternative in some spaces.
In others Android is the only being used, where the only thing left from GPL is the Linux kernel itself, and only because Fuchsia kind of went nowhere, besides some kitchen devices.
It's far more active than redox and it's actually running on real consumer devices. There are more than a hundred monthly active committers on the repo you were looking at, and that's not the only repo fuchsia has. Calling it dead or prone to dying is simply not based on any objective reality.
Okay, I take that back. Maybe I shouldn't say it is dead, but it is more on life support, where there is no new features being developed. Simply put, it is dead to me not that the project ceased to function, but dead to me in the sense that it is out of relevancy, just like Hong Kong.
What are the 100+ daily commits doing if not adding new features? Google is not spending any effort marketing the roadmap for the project, but it's very much still alive and in active development. There are RFCs published fairly often about technical designs for various problems being solved and you can see lots of technical discussions happening via code review.
Some new things that I can think of off the top of my head:
* More complete support for linux emulation via starnix.
* Support for system power management
* Many internal platform improvements including a completely overhauled logging system that uses shared memory rather than sockets
Most project happenings are not that interesting to the average person because operating system improvements are generally boring, at least at the layers fuchsia primarily focuses on. If you've worked in the OS space, a lot of things fuchsia is doing is really cool though.
Fuchsia is literally a Google project to avoid using Linux.
Look at their other "Open Source" projects like Android to understand why they would want to ensure they would avoid GPL code. It's all about control, and appearances of OS through gaslighting by source available.
Fuchsia would be far more valuable to everyone, including Google, if multiple parties participated in its development. If control was all that was desired, a hard fork of Linux would have made more sense. GPL doesn't compel companies to work with upstream. Just because you don't understand why fuchsia exists doesn't mean you need to invent fiction about it. Is it hard to believe there might be technical advantages to an alternative architecture to Linux and that a company might be willing to invest in trying to bring that innovation to the world?
Objective-C, the main difference to NeXTSTEP is that DriverKit changed from Objective-C into C++ with IO Kit, that uses Embedded C++ in a COM like approach.
In an homage to NeXTSTEP, the userspace version of IO Kit is named DriverKit.
There are some frameworks that might use C++ in their implementations, like Core Audio, however they are exposed to userspace as C APIs and Objective-C frameworks.
Hence why Apple nowadays mostly cares about LLVM, clang is good enough for their limited uses of C++.
