Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile)

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?"
Nor does it help us to decide whether support for UCRT-based C RTL is
would be worth their effort (my original suggestion) or pointless, as
suggested by Lawrence D'Oliveiro.

As to your advocacy, I am not a good target. I already evaluated tcc,
already was impressed by its compilation speed, already admitted that it
ca be useful in scenario where C is used as intermediate language,
already suggested a killer app (compiled HDL simulators), was already
disappointed by implementation the most sexy of its features (bound
checking) and already decided that personally I have no use for tcc.