Linked by Joel Dahl on Sun 30th Jan 2011 20:22 UTC
General Development The BSD licensed Portable C Compiler (PCC) is steadily on the road for a 1.0 release and is now able to compile a FreeBSD/amd64 CURRENT system with almost no changes. The current version of PCC has evolved from the original PCC developed at Bell Labs during the 1970s and has been maintained by Anders Magnusson and a small team of developers during the last decade. It has received more attention during the last few years, especially by OpenBSD and NetBSD people seeing it at as a viable option as a GCC replacement.
Thread beginning with comment 460472
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by bogomipz
by Nth_Man on Tue 1st Feb 2011 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by bogomipz"
Nth_Man
Member since:
2010-05-16

Most developers in this world honestly don't give a shit whether the code is free ... they have houses, cars, children etc.

Most of those developers finally get tired of buying compiler licenses, operating systems, etc. and computers just to serve interests of companies. Most of them finally realize about planned obsolescence that forces them.

They know that their companies are not free to choose, that their governments are not free to choose and that... money from planned obsolescence is also paid in part by developers, as they are customers and citizens of a country.

That money and time does not go to the family of the developer, but to some interested parts.

So most of them... finally care about free software.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by bogomipz
by vodoomoth on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 15:07 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by bogomipz"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Most of those developers finally get tired of buying compiler licenses, operating systems, etc. and computers just to serve interests of companies. Most of them finally realize about planned obsolescence that forces them.

They know that their companies are not free to choose, that their governments are not free to choose and that... money from planned obsolescence is also paid in part by developers, as they are customers and citizens of a country.

That money and time does not go to the family of the developer, but to some interested parts.

So most of them... finally care about free software.

I am a developer and I contend your comment. You write things like developers working at software companies don't get compensated.

While I have made some free and open source code available, I still understand that compilers have a high price: I've studied and taught compilers. I've been looking for a C++ IDE for my next project and considered Visual Studio. Given the price tag, I came to the conclusion it wasn't a product for me so I've installed the CDT plugin on Eclipse for the time being.

I understand that quality basic bricks have a high price. While looking for tools, I've also looked at the price of the commercial Qt license (I admit it left me breathless), it's almost twice my monthly pay so it's not for me, at least not now. I'll be looking for a more affordable toolkit. When I can afford it, I will gladly pay because I know it'll fund future developments.

I think most developers appreciate free software but also, given that they're aware it doesn't magically appear as a result to prayers, chants and dances, developers also understand that software has a price. For instance, what OopsBackup offers is priceless to me, I've made donations to FreeCommander and even posted a forum topic asking uTorrent to set up a donation possibility. For some other users, Sibelius or Photoshop would also be priceless. Each of us developers assign a value to software products, just like any consumer assigns a value to goods; if the product happens to be below that value, or even free, then fine. Otherwise, we leave it alone and just sigh. I wouldn't be surprised if this description of what devs think and feel was the most accurate... but how would we know?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by bogomipz
by Nth_Man on Fri 4th Feb 2011 10:31 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by bogomipz"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

I've also looked at the price of the commercial Qt license (I admit it left me breathless), it's almost twice my monthly pay so it's not for me

Unless you are planning to do something very strange... Qt will be of no cost for you.

That is to say, you can make "commercial" programs without the "commercial license".

Please see http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing/

Reply Parent Score: 1