1. 48

  2. 12

    Some more interesting articles on the website, including: http://jehanne.io/2018/11/15/simplicity-awakes.html

    I wonder why GCC and not e.g. tcc, if simplicity is stated as the primary goal?

    The author ponders package management in one place, I’m curious if they’d like https://github.com/andrewchambers/hermes

    1. 4

      I think the answer to this question is that much software relies on a (GNU) C standard not fully supported by tcc. As far as I know tcc only supports C89 fully (maybe even GNU89 although I am not sure)

      1. 1

        Is there an alternative minimal C toolchain that supports C11?

        1. 7

          cproc? The vast majority of packages in Oasis Linux are compiled with it

          1. 1

            Even if it supports C11, that wouldn’t be sufficient. Many applications use so called GNU C extensions (Linux for example) which are only fully supported by clang and gcc.

      2. 4

        I love the idea of “everything is a file”, but I also wonder if there’s been any work trying to combine it with structured data the way PowerShell commands produce structured outputs that also serialize nicely.

        1. 1

          It’s not only “formally” open, like many other projects from big names: you are wellcome to challenge my assumptions, prove I’m wrong, even remove my code. You just have to make it both simpler and more useful.

          I’m no copyright expert, but doesn’t that last sentence (which is probably in jest, tbh), make this less open/permissive if there’s now some stipulation that changes must be ‘better’?

          1. 2

            You can always fork, to make changes for the worse, I guess.

            1. 1

              I guess in this case, they mean “open” in the sense that they’ll accept changes (implying other projects don’t?? what?), but they’ll only accept improvements (which usually goes without saying..). But it’s framed in the sense that the license they chose is somehow more “open.” I’m not entirely sure what point they are trying to get across.

              1. 4

                I read it as to mean that he will be very open to change his perspective on the project in major ways. Not everybody is open to have their mind changed.

          2. 1

            I would like to work on a small OS for smart phones someday. Particularly targeting the new RISC-V processors.

            1. 4

              I suggest you take a look at Inferno: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(operating_system)

              It’s already got Raspberry Pi and Android ports in progress. A smartphone version has been demonstrated. It’s the last product of the Unix family, with about 30y more development and thought than Unix itself.

              1. 2

                Thanks for this