Re: [dev] [OT] glibc (was: [9base] rc can't find .)

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Moritz Wilhelmy <crap_AT_wzff.de> wrote:
> Do we have feature-complete alternatives to GNU libc?
> eglibc is not an option, since it's based solely on the point that Drepper is
> an asshole.
> From what I heard, uClibc is incomplete, as is klibc and dietlibc..
> What else do we have? Android libc? How many programs depend on glibc?

One of my favorite things about Go is that it completely bypasses the
system's libc, and its core libraries and runtime all make use of the
system's syscalls directly.

So, the answer to your question is: start writing all your code in Go ;)

uriel

P.S.: Other than that, no 'libc' is 'complete' as PoSix is an insane
abomination, and the more complete a libc is, the more it sucks. The
android libc is quite minimal and seems quite decent, uClibc is *huge*
(hundreds of thousands of lines of code), dietlibc is smaller and
cleaner, but more limited, I have not checked klibc, but given that Al
Viro has been involved in that project, it is probably pretty good,
but I think it is quite specialized (and probably not portable to
non-lunix systems).
Received on Fri Jun 11 2010 - 11:57:18 UTC