Like the other SVN, the author has been around forever in the Linux space. And yet his articles always come across like somebody that first discovered it a few months ago.
Somehow I find myself rankling at even his smallest editorials as well. Take this one: “Then, there's GCC Front-End for Rust, which can be loaded by the existing rustc frontend, but benefits from GCC optimizations.” Ok, sure, as long as we do not mind losing all the LLVM optimizations. Why not just say that Rust uses LLVM today and that there is a project to allow the use of the GCC-backend as an option? Leave it to the reader to decide which ecosystem or optimizations they prefer as this article is not even about that. It is like he Googled Rust and added everything he could find to the article. I can think of a reason to use the GCC version of Rust with the kernel. If you are using GCC to compile the C parts of the kernel, you also need LLVM for Rust. A GCC based Rust would eliminate that requirement. Presumably this also allows both the C and Rust code to target the same platforms. GCC and LLVM platform support is not the same. Those would be relevant points but neither of those is about “GCC optimizations”.
That is just one example.
Basically, I find his articles to be as misleading as they are informative and that is not what I want from the technical press.
Like the other SVN, the author has been around forever in the Linux space. And yet his articles always come across like somebody that first discovered it a few months ago.
Somehow I find myself rankling at even his smallest editorials as well. Take this one: “Then, there's GCC Front-End for Rust, which can be loaded by the existing rustc frontend, but benefits from GCC optimizations.” Ok, sure, as long as we do not mind losing all the LLVM optimizations. Why not just say that Rust uses LLVM today and that there is a project to allow the use of the GCC-backend as an option? Leave it to the reader to decide which ecosystem or optimizations they prefer as this article is not even about that. It is like he Googled Rust and added everything he could find to the article. I can think of a reason to use the GCC version of Rust with the kernel. If you are using GCC to compile the C parts of the kernel, you also need LLVM for Rust. A GCC based Rust would eliminate that requirement. Presumably this also allows both the C and Rust code to target the same platforms. GCC and LLVM platform support is not the same. Those would be relevant points but neither of those is about “GCC optimizations”.
That is just one example.
Basically, I find his articles to be as misleading as they are informative and that is not what I want from the technical press.