Re: [dev] [lnanosmtp]

From: Louis Santillan <lpsantil_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:29:48 -0700

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Kamil Cholewiński <harry666t_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I agree Kamil. ulinux could live (and should stand) on its own.
Received on Fri Jun 10 2016 - 19:29:48 CEST