My thoughts exactly.

EdgeOS

*EdgyOS

It seems very odd to me that the author would choose to add such an FAQ entry but fail to explain /how/ or /why/ GCC "is a crap." I'm sure there are several valid criticisms of GCC, but to be so forward without a list of examples or even a link to someone else's article does not inspire me to trust your software in my ring 0.

Add to that the very next FAQ entry after that:

> Do you have any kind of tests to check if the code is working as expected?

> We don’t need tests. If it compiles, it is good enough; if it boots up, then it is perfect.

As someone's personal hobby project - more power to that person! It takes a lot more skill and dedication than I possess. I wish nothing but success and good fortune. And you can be as opinionated as you want.

As something to be presented to the wider world, with a desire to have (testing) users and contributions... Hmm.

They're quoting Linus Torvalds.

Then they should link a reference

> "Regression testing"? What's that? If it compiles, it is good; if it boots up, it is perfect.

Source: Torvalds, Linus (1998-04-08). linux-kernel mailing list. https://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9804.1/0149.html

"They" are in no obligation of doing anything. It's a hobby project from someone. They owe you nothing.

This is obviously being said at least partially tongue in cheek. Not every website is Microsoft dot com.

I don't want to use tongue in cheek software

Then don’t? Its not like it’s going to replace iOS any time soon.

It seems like it's some kind of joke software, but it isn't labeled that way. Here is the creator:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40725452

Performance art maybe?

You left out "In the spirit of lighthearted development" and "As the project matures, implementing a comprehensive suite of automated tests is definitely on our roadmap."

That text was added since the original comment: https://archive.is/4CEWV

https://harmful.cat-v.org/software/GCC classic

Right! Even though that post is almost 20(!!) years old, Theo is respected enough that you could use that as a rationale for crapping on GCC.

Obviously Theo has his detractors, rightfully so. And the language he uses in that post is not what I would use at all. It's downright unacceptable. But at least it's something - a thing from an authority you can point to and say "this is why!"

Anyone with half a drop of technical competence know that GCC is not "a crap". GCC is a fuck, and doubly so if you need D, Ada, JIT or want to find a C++ template error.

> gcc is the worst compiler except all those other compilers

- Winston Churchill

That's actually true. While, LLVM/Clang is better compiler, I definitely would expect some example here.

Clang isn't better. It just has a more permissive license so it's what Apple uses.

Apple started the Clang project buddy, you’ve got your cause and effect backwards.

Yes, because they weren't willing to keep using their GCC fork, for various reason, namely the license (which already made Steve Jobs unhappy once), and being less modular (as per design decision).

It's also usable as a library in a way GCC isn't. That's why Apple started using it with their OpenGL software drivers back in the day. That's why almost all modern and new programming languages use LLVM, and those that don't do not use GCC.

Even if GCC was easily usable as library, many of those LLVM use cases don't work that well with GCC's license.

That's out of date, libgccjit exists. LLVM is a bit difficult to use as a library because it has no stable API and is in C++ so it doesn't have a stable ABI either.

LLVM does offer a C based stable ABI, even though it isn't as feature rich as the C++ one, is good enough for most use cases.

https://llvm.org/doxygen/group__LLVMC.html

Hmm.. why is it called "jit"? That seems like it's telling everyone the use case is very different from LLVM. Also the big EXPERIMENTAL banner doesn't instill confidence. Unlike with LLVM which is used by dozens of production languages.

Why would you need it as a library other than to do jit?

Actually GCC for Windows target is like pain in the ass. Look for how many problems ReactOS had with it. Also this would need SEH to be implemented. Clang gives that out of the box.

Don't care for legacy dying OS's, sorry.

The compiler it uses: https://git.codingworkshop.eu.org/xt-sys/xtchain

"This is a LLVM/Clang/LLD based mingw-w64 toolchain". Ahh LLVM :D

Wow, A++ job on having white text on a white background for their gitea instance. I was curious if it was just some Firefox specific quirk or something but it seems the .css file is 404 (named "theme-arc-green", so maybe it's best it is 404)

It inspires confidence because GCC is bloated and buggy.

> Would I trust an OS which states "Why don’t you use GCC? – Because GCC is a crap."

No.

Two decades ago I could be willing to accept this kind of comment from the 'FLOSS' community if it was about a proprietary vendor (especially microsoft). Nowadays, this behaviour is only useful for pointing: 'look they are still acting like teenagers'.

Only people who were using gcc 20+ years ago will know the pain