Re: [dev] [lnanosmtp]

From: FRIGN <>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:20:14 +0200

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:02:44 -0700
Louis Santillan <> wrote:

Hey Louis,

> 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.

can you give an example? Posix sometimes does some weird shit, but
definitely not are bugs standardized.
What I noticed though is that Posix likes to keep the use of "char"
even though it means "byte".

> Take Plan 9 or Go-lang. Is that NIH? Or is that someone
> experimenting and/or seizing an opportunity to suck less?

Woah, hold your horses there for a minute. You are comparing a
hacky libc-wannabe-codechunk, hardcoded on top of Linux syscalls
and arch-specific with one maintainer with Plan 9 oder Go?

I would be the first to go forward and call for maybe a simpler
approach to this whole (or)deal, however, I really don't see
so much that would justify tipping over all existing code built
on top of the libc and starting anew.



Received on Fri Jun 10 2016 - 12:20:14 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Jun 10 2016 - 12:24:17 CEST