Comment by rollcat

Comment by rollcat 16 hours ago

5 replies

View on Hacker News

This.

Simple projects: just use plain C. This is dwm, the window manager that spawned a thousand forks. No ./configure in sight: <https://git.suckless.org/dwm/files.html>

If you run into platform-specific stuff, just write a ./configure in simple and plain shell: <https://git.suckless.org/utmp/file/configure.html>. Even if you keep adding more stuff, it shouldn't take more than 100ms.

If you're doing something really complex (like say, writing a compiler), take the approach from Plan 9 / Go. Make a conditionally included header file that takes care of platform differences for you. Check the $GOARCH/u.h files here:

<https://go.googlesource.com/go/+/refs/heads/release-branch.g...>

(There are also some simple OS-specific checks: <https://go.googlesource.com/go/+/refs/heads/release-branch.g...>)

This is the reference Go compiler; it can target any platform, from any host (modulo CGO); later versions are also self-hosting and reproducible.

Levitating 7 hours ago

I want to agree with you, but as someone who regularly packages software for multiple distributions I really would prefer people using autoconf.

Software with custom configure scripts are especially dreaded amongst packagers.

Reply View 1 reply
  • Joker_vD 6 hours ago

    Why, again, software in the Linux world has to be packaged for multiple distributions? On the Windows side, if you make installer for Windows 7, it will still work on Windows 11. And to the boot, you don't have to go through some Microsoft-approved package distibution platform and its approval process: you can, of course, but you don't have to, you can distribute your software by yourself.

    Reply View 0 replies
knorker 12 hours ago

Interesting that you would bring up Go. Go is probably the most head-desk language of all for writing portable code. Go will fight you the whole way.

Even plain C is easier.

You can have a whole file be for OpenBSD, to work around that some standard library parts have different types on different platforms.

So now you need one file for all platforms and architectures where Timeval.Usec is int32, and another file for where it is int64. And you need to enumerate in your code all GOOS/GOARCH combinations that Go supports or will ever support.

You need a file for Linux 32 bit ARM (int32/int32 bit), one for Linux 64 bit ARM (int64,int64), one for OpenBSD 32 bit ARM (int64/int32), etc…. Maybe you can group them, but this is just one difference, so in the end you'll have to do one file per combination of OS and Arch. And all you wanted was pluggable "what's a Timeval?". Something that all build systems solved a long time ago.

And then maybe the next release of OpenBSD they've changed it, so now you cannot use Go's way to write portable code at all.

So between autotools, cmake, and the Go method, the Go method is by far the worst option for writing portable code.

Reply View 2 replies
  • rollcat 11 hours ago

    I have specifically given an example of u.h defining types such as i32, u64, etc to avoid running a hundred silly tests like "how long is long", "how long is long long", etc.

    > So now you need one file for all platforms and architectures where Timeval.Usec is int32, and another file for where it is int64. And you need to enumerate in your code all GOOS/GOARCH combinations that Go supports or will ever support.

    I assume you mean [syscall.Timeval]?

        $ go doc syscall
    [...]
    Package syscall contains an interface to the low-level operating system
    primitives. The details vary depending on the underlying system [...].
    Do you have a specific use case for [syscall], where you cannot use [time]?
    Reply View 1 reply
    • knorker 6 hours ago

      Yeah I've had specific use cases when I need to use syscall. I mean... if there weren't use cases for syscall then it wouldn't exist.

      But not only is syscall an example of portability done wrong for APIs, as I said it's also an example of it being implemented in a dumb way causing needless work and breakage.

      Syscall as implementation leads by bad example because it's the only method Go supports.

      Checking for GOARCH+GOOS tuple equality for portable code is a known anti pattern, for reasons I've said and other ones, that Go still decided to go with.

      But yeah, autotools scripts often check for way more things than actually matter. Often because people copy paste configure.ac from another project without trimming.

      Reply View 0 replies