ebuku VS mold

Another option is to use something like ebuku.

i remember looking at that Google style guide a while back, and not being enthused about it. It's true my style across my POSIX scripts isn't yet entirely consistent, as i'm new to writing POSIX shell scripts, and am still working out what's best for me, as the person who's going to be the primary maintainer. Still, i believe my style to be basically consistent within a given script. Having been programming for a few decades now - although i only started coding-for-pay in the late 90s, starting with Perl - i've developed my own preferences regarding code layout (such as in my ELisp packages, e.g. Ebuku), and nowadays take the approach: I'll follow others' style in others' projects, and will generally try to follow common style standards in my own projects, but will modify them as needed when i find they're not conducive to my work.

Well, indeed, i certainly wasn't expecting you to do so! But i already have more than enough volunteer FOSS stuff on my plate as it is (e.g. Ebuku, pulseaudio-control, s6-man-pages, execline-man-pages and guides, amongst various other things), and not using mold with gcc 11 is no problem for me at this point. So i've just noted the issue with the patch on the wiki page, and the patch will have to be updated by someone for whom it's more important.

Fair point. Still, as a FOSS dev myself, i feel that the title might serve as a useful reminder to a number of their readers. Particularly when so many people use FOSS developed by large corporations, and see themselves as 'customers' entitled to 'responsive service'[a] that those of us who aren't a corporation aren't necessarily in a position to provide (even if we do try to provide 'best effort'). The contents of the screencap for one of my FOSS projects is not random. :-)

Based on your post headline, i was going to suggest my Ebuku package, an Emacs frontend to the buku Web bookmark manager - i use it myself, and it has support for both tags and comments on links. But it doesn't meet your requirement of capturing from the browser; i copy-and-paste the URL from the browser into an Emacs prompt.

Me asking for actual data about the the extent to which various arguments to the -O flag is me "trying to argue with you" and "having a bad day"? Er, what? i'm saying your assertions might well be correct, but as a dev myself (here's some of the stuff i've been doing during our exchange), i want some concrete data in support of this, because "premature optimisation is the root of all evil" (cf. "Rob Pike's 5 Rules of Programming").

Not beyond playing around a bit with Squeak. i like Smalltalk's message-passing approach to OO, and i like how thoroughly modifiable the environment is. i haven't spent enough time to know how easily it can interface with the system on which the image is running; one of the things i like about Emacs is that, in addition to being so modifiable itself, it provides lots of support for interacting with software outside of itself. (E.g. i wrote an Emacs package which provides an Emacs UI for the CLI-based buku Web bookmark manager: Ebuku.)

I think this is unlikely to gain traction. I say that no to discourage you, just to explain.

- The community has an instinctive distrust of closed source or a compiler from an untrusted source. If you’re familiar with the Trusting Trust attack you’ll understand why.

- Dev tools in every language ecosystem are almost always free, unless they involve some kind of hosting. People aren’t used to opening their wallets. Look the experience of the guy who built the mold linker(https://github.com/rui314/mold). Far superior to the state of art, improves incremental compiles a lot, widely applicable across ecosystems (C, C++, Rust), CPU architectures and Operating Systems. You don’t even have to modify your compiler, just need to point to his linker. He’s even giving it away for free for personal use. But still, almost no one uses it. The inertia of the established options is really high.

- It’s not complex enough. Think about the complexity involved in the cranelift backend. No one can seriously recreate the efforts of bjorn3. If we could have, we would have. But the idea idea here can be recreated, especially by the experts who already built incremental compilation into rustc.

- But if your solution is truly complex, like the parallel frontend, the burden of maintaining a fork would be too high. You’d have to spend all your time rebasing.

Again I’m not trying to discourage you, just stating the difficulties of making a business in the dev tools space. You would be better off contributing this excellent work to the community and trying a different tack.

I initially thought this would be about the mold linker (https://github.com/rui314/mold)

I assume this submission is trying to highlight the specific message (2023-01-24) : https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/190#issuecomment-14028...

Fyi... the author wrote a more expansive blog post about selling dev tools a few months later (2023-06-06) and there was a related HN thread about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36225016

Loongson's LoongArch CPU has been supported. (03b1a1c)

I'm amazed at how quickly the author responds to requests: https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/1057

From the report to the fix in less than two days.

I'm not sure how competitive it will be with lld, especially if we consider ThinLTO (which takes multiple minutes on 64-core machine) - it can make the advantages of mold insignificant.

What other solutions have you tried for the problem of slow linking? You haven't even said which linker and what flags you're using. I haven't actually tried it, but the author of gold has an even faster linker called mold: https://github.com/rui314/mold

> Mold did it first, though: https://github.com/rui314/mold

Before LLD?