On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:02:44 -0700 Louis Santillan <lpsan...@gmail.com> 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. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>
