: cancel because of his disgusting opinions

Steering Committee: Ok!

Me: now that I look at the remaining members of GCC Steering Committee, all I see are corporations with long ties with the DoD. Please, fix it.

: don't worry, we shall do no evil!

developer: go away, you concern troll! We are inclusive!

Me: 🥺

@Shamar I don't like the way you tacked the nationality issue, you let them target you on it.
Why didn't you focus on the fact that they work for huge corporations working for the US gov?
Their nationality is not really important, what it's important is their affiliation.

(well nationality too, because they can be forced by the us gov, but that happens, sadly, with half of the globe)

Stay hard my friend!


is American too, but I focused on their culture (and this their nationalities) because they accepted the request of a employee to remove because of "his disgusting opinions".

So they made a cultural issue.

But I was pretty clear about the fact the real problem is the influence of their employers over .

And apparently they can't argue with that:

The real issue is: how we can go forward?

Relying on GCC is a severe risk for anybody outside the . and are just as bad.

So we need to build alternatives from scratch.

@Shamar I expect TinyCC to get tons of contributions in the short term then... :D


I'm not sure.

My trust has been betrayed so many times in these years by (those I thought were) projects... I do not know who to trust now.

, , ...
corrupts everything it touch... and now its employees also created the foundation.

There MUST be a way out, but I cannot see it right now.

GCC taught me a new valuable lesson, though.

A new operating system is not enough. A new protocol is not enough either.

We need a new programming language that can be read and understood by literally everybody on first sight.

@Shamar I plan to make an Oberon-like machine based on RISC-V and a simple FPGA-based motherboard for personal computing: writing text and programs in an offline environment (with some simple online capabilities).
But I don't really like Oberon as a language so I don't know... I have to think about something else. At the moment I'm creating an extremely simple RISC-V interpreter for my tests... maybe someday i'll finish my Scheme compiler.


I'm not so deep into electronics and virtual machines, but what I have in mind right now is something like a based on (like Kernel style languages) but with a -like syntax (early python, no syntactic sugar whatsover).

Homiconicity is important because people need to learn that data is code and code is data.

Oberon has a great simplicity, it could be a good alternative to an Kernel-style but his syntax is not readable on first sight nor homoiconic.

But to be readable on first sight it has to build on top of few orthogonal existing human language conventions.

For example, instead of "include" or "import" or "using" and so on, you would include external definitions through something like "KNOWING", meaning that to understand what a piece of code will do, you have to know what the imported files do.

Just like with human , when we build on top of what was already written by those before us.

And to contextualize, you would always use /, not ".", ":", "->".

And maybe we should have a multilanguage programming language as we do in Europe, not just mindless adopting English.

It's time to go forward.

@Shamar I am a telecom engineer so I have some other skills that might be useful for this. In the end, this was kind of a dream when I was at college and now I have the skills to make it true.

I like your thoughts on the programming language too... hmmm I have to think about it.

The oberon model is very interesting in many aspects... but yeah... the language... is not the best.
Maybe I'll go for lisp there... IDK


Another thing I'd like to experiment in language design is a typesystem based on Cantor's set theory.

Basically, a type is a logic predicate that is granted to always stay true during the data lifetime.

Such approach meld the difference between structural type system, nominative type system and (value-)dependent type system.

If you have two types, Integer and Even, you can pass an Integer to a function than takes an Even only if you have checked if such integer is even.

And, obviously, you can always use an Even value when you need an Integer.

Imagine a `head` function that only apply to NonEmptyList, that is a List whose length is greater than 0, and so on.

Why Cantor set theory?

Because people learn it at primary school and well... I'm naive... just like . 😉

@Shamar Thank you for standing up to the cancel culture mob.

You really made my day.

Just take another look at the signatures to know you are not alone, even though not everybody is a #GCC contributor.


I signed the letter on first day I learnt about it.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.