Lionel Debroux (./12) :
e.g. the couple dozen name collisions between examples

A complete non-problem. When have I ever promised that the examples can be sent to the calculator at the same time? That's not at all what the examples are for! Those examples are documentation, more precisely code snippets, not programs which are useful by themselves. At most you'll want to run them once on an emulator to see what the code does and then discard the savestate. I don't see why they need unique on-calc names at all.

Discouraging former contributors and potential contributors alike is not an appropriate way to achieve this goal

It's not my fault that some people (and this includes the whole GCC4TI team) can't get over their egos for the long-term benefit of the project!

Some of those people never tried to actually contribute, just to impose their design choices. As for you, Lionel, you at least did contribute stuff, a long time ago, but you did it in a form which is extremely hard to integrate into the existing project and never bothered trying to improve this situation.

The project's quality doesn't worsen immediately (in the long-term, it will due to bit-rotting) - but it won't improve either. Hardly anything gets done in TIGCC - not even things that you're always nagging other people for, such as optimizing for size (here, the library functions).

Optimizing away 2 or 4 bytes from some library function is of almost no practical use. It would be much more useful to work on e.g. the compiler, where you can save hundreds if not thousands of bytes on many programs.

It's also quite sad that my LZMA launcher work got little to no interest, when it would save kilobytes of archive memory for many programs.