3 ms·
I'm surprised the author forgot to consider platform architectures, because he has the most important aspects of a package manager down. Unfortunately, it is s
by emsy 9y ago
I'm surprised the author forgot to consider platform architectures, because he has the most important aspects of a package manager down.
Unfortunately, it is still terribly easy to write non-portable code with C++. I think this is the main factor why we still don't have a widely used package manager for C++ but your mileage may vary.
- pfultz2 9y ago> I'm surprised the author forgot to consider platform architectures That is mainly for binary distribution. Most C++ package managers currently are source-based because binary compatibility is not a easy problem(there are some package managers trying to solve it though). > Unfortunately, it is still terribly easy to write non-portable code with C++ Yes, it easy to call into a platform-specific API, so cross-platform portability is limited by the testing resources for the package maintainer or library author.
- emsy 9y agoI was talking about source code, not binaries. And I didn't mean platform specific APIs either (though that is a problem as well). I was talking about differences between processor architectures. But while we're at it, try using wstrings or snprintf across Windows/Linux.