On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Louis Santillan <lpsantil_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
Very good points. However I don't think such a low-level framework
belongs as a part of an smtpd. If libc sucks, write a better libc! But
make sure it's well-tested, portable, bug-free, usable, uses good and
sane interfaces, etc etc etc. Then measure adoption in applications
versus other libnih's.
Received on Fri Jun 10 2016 - 12:19:33 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Jun 10 2016 - 12:24:11 CEST