On Friday, June 10, 2016, FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:06:54 -0700
> Louis Santillan <lpsantil_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Louis,
>
> > Good job for getting this working. I'm a believer that suckless
> > indirectly speaks to API design in addition to software design. There
> > are many parts of libc that suck, IMO. Years ago, when I found Felix
> > von Leitner's talk about software design [0], and dietlibc [1], and
> > libdjb [2], and libowfat [3], I became curious about exploring other
> > runtimes for C [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Keep applying your ulinux runtime.
>
> are you joking? This reeks of NiH. In many regards, Posix has issues
> and without doubt, they can hinder you. But does it really justify
> just handrolling your own, unportable, probably buggy libc?
As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general)
has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply to keep
old code compiling (many methods that start with str*, malloc/free
corner but frequent cases, etc). I'd say that's sucks. And that is
why we have seen the proliferation of languages in the last 30 years
(since ansi c acceptance). A condition of NIH and a far worse sin
than trying to fix the situation by utilizing a lower level api.
Take Plan 9 or Go-lang. Is that NIH? Or is that someone
experimenting and/or seizing an opportunity to suckless?
Received on Fri Jun 10 2016 - 12:02:44 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Jun 10 2016 - 12:12:12 CEST