> "This was the right way to do it forty years ago, so that's why the experience is worse" isn't a compelling reason for a user to suffer today.

On my system, "dnf repoquery --whatrequires cross-gcc-common" lists 26 gcc-*-linux-gnu packages (that is, kernel / firmware cross compilers for 26 architectures). The command "dnf repoquery --whatrequires cross-binutils-common" lists 31 binutils-*-linux-gnu packages.

The author writes, "LLVM and all cross compilers that follow it instead put all of the backends in one binary". Do those compilers support 25+ back-ends? And if they do, is it good design to install back-ends for (say) 23 such target architectures that you're never going to cross-compile for, in practice? Does that benefit the user?

My impression is that the author does not understand the modularity of gcc cross compilers / packages because he's unaware of (or doesn't care for) the scale that gcc aims at.