5 ms·

Hi, full disclosure, it's my team working on this at Google FWIW, and the technical lead for much of Google's contributions to LLVM. When we asked the communit

Hi, full disclosure, it's my team working on this at Google FWIW, and the technical lead for much of Google's contributions to LLVM. When we asked the community if they were interested in us developing this in the open as part of LLVM, we meant as part of LLVM. We're very committed to the LLVM open source project, and think it would be great for this to be developed within that framework (technical, project, community, the whole works). I'm hopeful that the community is in fact interested. But we also were asking -- we have some specific technical goals that we'd like to make sure we can accomplish. It really is the community's decision whether this makes sense. =]

andrey_utkin 7y ago
Hi Chandler! Is it just me, or the original Googler's posting on llvm-dev does not explain their motivation beyond the vague "doesn't quite address"? I guess some solid list of problems hard to resolve could help. Also, as you say, it's a community decision now, what will be a plan if community NACKs the proposal? A BoringLibc from scratch? Commitment to contribute hard fixes to glibc and/or mail?
- chandlerc1024 7y ago
  I think it's hard to predict what a community will be interested in deep-diving to understand. And I'm not sure that HN is super representative of its interests either. The email was aimed at LLVM folks, not HN. I generally trust the LLVM community to ask for any details they need to reasonably evaluate a proposal like this, and I also trust the folks on my team to work to address those requests to the extent we can. I don't think it makes sense to try and speculate about what option will make the most sense if LLVM says "nope". Generally, I plan to encourage the team to see if there is a good way for us to address concerns the LLVM community has while still getting the technical things we need. IMO, it would be somewhat surprising if there were no reasonable path where this could both be reasonable for the LLVM community and Google. Doesn't mean it is impossible, but having detailed and precise plans don't seem like a priority. IMO, the priority is finding a good way to work with the LLVM community here. On a more meta level, I also think it would be good for lots of folks (HN, twitter, etc.) to be a bit less harsh in their criticism of initial posts proposing new efforts/projects. I've seen this several times recently (ranging from this to the V language stuff). I'd suggest folks maybe ask questions and give people a chance to flesh out their thoughts and provide missing context rather than hammering in feedback. In many cases, I think the feedback is actually good, but the method of delivery makes it much harder for people to learn from and respond to constructively. Anyways, enough meta...
  - majewsky 7y ago
    > I've seen [harsh criticism] several times recently (ranging from this to the V language stuff). It's probably not a good idea to put yourself on one level with a scammer. Seriously though, any effort made by Google will of course be scrutinized much more vigorously than the same effort made by a smaller org or a single person. If I decide to build my own libc, no one will care because they probably don't need to care. But big companies like Google have the power and inertia to just shove decisions in people's faces. I think for most people here, a large part of the dayjob is spent dealin with and working around the stupid decisions of third-party hardware/software vendors.
    - gorio 7y ago
      There are also many example of Google doing just that to various degrees when it comes to open source projects, security research, their own products, dealing with vendors, customers or employment among other things. This of course isn't something unique to Google. What is unique however is their position. They are probably the most powerful company when it comes computers, software and the Internet. They have the culture, means and goodwill to do a lot more damage than almost anyone else. I am sure that is at part of why people want to work for Google. Not to do damage of course, but because you can make a difference. Unfortunately making a difference for Google frequently isn't the best for rest of us.
  - sverige 7y ago
    >And I'm not sure that HN is super representative of its interests either. The email was aimed at LLVM folks, not HN. >On a more meta level, I also think it would be good for lots of folks (HN, twitter, etc.) to be a bit less harsh in their criticism of initial posts proposing new efforts/projects. I'm sure it's super annoying when folks in the larger community with vested interests in the continuing success of projects like LLVM start noticing harsh criticism coming from credible experts like Rich Felker. =] And then post it to HN or tweet it out to others so the concern spreads. =] But all feedback is good feedback, right? And anyways, I'm sure the folks at LLVM will let Google have their way in the end because there's no other foreseeable outcome of this discussion, is there? At least, none worth discussing. =]

andrey_utkin 7y ago

Hi Chandler! Is it just me, or the original Googler's posting on llvm-dev does not explain their motivation beyond the vague "doesn't quite address"? I guess some solid list of problems hard to resolve could help. Also, as you say, it's a community decision now, what will be a plan if community NACKs the proposal? A BoringLibc from scratch? Commitment to contribute hard fixes to glibc and/or mail?

chandlerc1024 7y ago
I think it's hard to predict what a community will be interested in deep-diving to understand. And I'm not sure that HN is super representative of its interests either. The email was aimed at LLVM folks, not HN. I generally trust the LLVM community to ask for any details they need to reasonably evaluate a proposal like this, and I also trust the folks on my team to work to address those requests to the extent we can. I don't think it makes sense to try and speculate about what option will make the most sense if LLVM says "nope". Generally, I plan to encourage the team to see if there is a good way for us to address concerns the LLVM community has while still getting the technical things we need. IMO, it would be somewhat surprising if there were no reasonable path where this could both be reasonable for the LLVM community and Google. Doesn't mean it is impossible, but having detailed and precise plans don't seem like a priority. IMO, the priority is finding a good way to work with the LLVM community here. On a more meta level, I also think it would be good for lots of folks (HN, twitter, etc.) to be a bit less harsh in their criticism of initial posts proposing new efforts/projects. I've seen this several times recently (ranging from this to the V language stuff). I'd suggest folks maybe ask questions and give people a chance to flesh out their thoughts and provide missing context rather than hammering in feedback. In many cases, I think the feedback is actually good, but the method of delivery makes it much harder for people to learn from and respond to constructively. Anyways, enough meta...
- majewsky 7y ago
  > I've seen [harsh criticism] several times recently (ranging from this to the V language stuff). It's probably not a good idea to put yourself on one level with a scammer. Seriously though, any effort made by Google will of course be scrutinized much more vigorously than the same effort made by a smaller org or a single person. If I decide to build my own libc, no one will care because they probably don't need to care. But big companies like Google have the power and inertia to just shove decisions in people's faces. I think for most people here, a large part of the dayjob is spent dealin with and working around the stupid decisions of third-party hardware/software vendors.
  - gorio 7y ago
    There are also many example of Google doing just that to various degrees when it comes to open source projects, security research, their own products, dealing with vendors, customers or employment among other things. This of course isn't something unique to Google. What is unique however is their position. They are probably the most powerful company when it comes computers, software and the Internet. They have the culture, means and goodwill to do a lot more damage than almost anyone else. I am sure that is at part of why people want to work for Google. Not to do damage of course, but because you can make a difference. Unfortunately making a difference for Google frequently isn't the best for rest of us.
- sverige 7y ago
  >And I'm not sure that HN is super representative of its interests either. The email was aimed at LLVM folks, not HN. >On a more meta level, I also think it would be good for lots of folks (HN, twitter, etc.) to be a bit less harsh in their criticism of initial posts proposing new efforts/projects. I'm sure it's super annoying when folks in the larger community with vested interests in the continuing success of projects like LLVM start noticing harsh criticism coming from credible experts like Rich Felker. =] And then post it to HN or tweet it out to others so the concern spreads. =] But all feedback is good feedback, right? And anyways, I'm sure the folks at LLVM will let Google have their way in the end because there's no other foreseeable outcome of this discussion, is there? At least, none worth discussing. =]