Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 20:25:35 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <20250312202535.00004088@yahoo.com>
References: <vq1qas$j22$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
	<20250304092827.708@kylheku.com>
	<vq7g1p$1vmg5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq94dt$2boso$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqcsk7$23bfo$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vqefn1$3flpt$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqeu5c$3imil$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqeun4$3iqbq$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqfcbe$3lkkc$1@dont-email.me>
	<871pv861ht.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<20250308192940.00001351@yahoo.com>
	<vqi1ge$8jg8$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqmgjv$3a2il$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vqn4dn$1eb9s$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqo3ss$3hkas$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vqph2e$203bs$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqpjh7$210q9$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqpo1s$222s0$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqpqo6$23197$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqpsvc$23gc1$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250311201757.000045e2@yahoo.com>
	<vqqaf0$267fp$2@dont-email.me>
	<20250312005843.00003584@yahoo.com>
	<vqqlc6$28fls$6@dont-email.me>
	<20250312105319.0000070b@yahoo.com>
	<vqs48v$2kqma$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250312163212.00005db3@yahoo.com>
	<vqse47$2mnr0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:25:36 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4ef870278692d6db7d7d5b2c405359df";
	logging-data="2754990"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EMnfokFot8d6C0MFSDxBbJrrSgmtn0RM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fjlu6tHXFwLsnGD4IjUfRkd0Fm8=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 4105

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:52:24 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> On 12/03/2025 14:32, Michael S wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:04:16 +0000
> > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 12/03/2025 08:53, Michael S wrote:  
> >>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:43:51 -0000 (UTC)
> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:58:43 +0200, Michael S wrote:
> >>>>     
> >>>>> BTW, I think that tcc is doing damage to itself by refusal to
> >>>>> support ucrt variant of Microsoft's C RTL.  
> >>>>
> >>>> Damaging their market share and hurting their revenues?  
> >>>
> >>> I don't know what exactly motivates people to continue to maintain
> >>> tcc after all fun things, like, for example, writing working
> >>> compiler*, are done years ago. But it seems that extending user
> >>> base and increasing satisfaction of existing users is not totally
> >>> unimportant for this people.  
> >>
> >> Tcc is a more important product than you might think. It is a
> >> compact program of 200-300KB that can turn C source code into
> >> binary. 
> > 
> > You post does not answer the question in hand, which is "What
> > motivates current tcc maintainers to go on?"  
> 
> I thought I did. It seems a reasonably well-known compiler with some 
> interesting use-cases where a big product may be unsuited.
> 
> I'm sure there are enough users world-wide for it to be worth 
> maintaining, and people willing to do that.
>

That answer why maintaining tcc is a good thing for community. It does
not answer why it is good for maintainers.

> There are also plenty of people interested in messing with compilers
> or who want to contribute to such projects. Tcc's compiler comprises
> some 36 .c and .h files; gcc is more like 85,000 files.
> 
> So Tcc would be simpler to work with, given 99.95% fewer files, and
> to make a noticeable difference to!
> 

It is unlikely that existence of such tweakers makes life of
responsible maintainers any easier. The opposite is more likely.
Now, it is possible that harder life is what they seek.