Comment by 🐐 boringbbsuser
Re: "i have this feeling about lowtech (not permacomputing) that…"
Fascinating thread!
I agree, gcc is not for the faint of heart. tcc is much more "hackable."
On the otherhand, in a "grid down" situation, how often will we have to hack on our compilers?
I do like software like tcc. Would you say that Perl is low tech? What about Ruby?
Perl is definitely lighter than Python. Go is nice to work with.
IMO: OpenBSD is the most "hackable" daily driver. Has the best ratio of features to complexity.
But still, it's quite complex and has clang.
Maybe something else has it beat, though?
Mar 03 · 2 months ago
Original Post
i have this feeling about lowtech (not permacomputing) that gcc is not lowtech. however, tcc is. we feel that c is lowtech, because it has a small syntax and it is possible to write efficient code with it, but we forget that the c we use has lots of corporate investments, lots of language extensions, and the compiler compiles in hours. tcc is lowtech, because it supports standard c without extensions and it is easy to compile it. however, it is not possible to compile linux kernel with tcc....