3 ms·
Yes, that’s exactly what the linked article mentions > If your application is written in a scripting language, > odds are that you can simply move it over
by RKearney 8y ago
Yes, that’s exactly what the linked article mentions
> If your application is written in a scripting language,
> odds are that you can simply move it over to an A1 instance
> and run it as-is. If your application compiles down to
> native code, you will need to rebuild it on an A1 instance.
- exikyut 8y agoHeh, "rebuild it _on_" They're clearly putting a hundred-mile moat between them and cross-compilation from the start :D I wonder what their support stance will be when confronted with customer cross-compile scenarios.
- mathw 8y agoMight just be "figure it out for yourself". I doubt it's that hard if you're using a language with a reasonable cross-compile toolchain. That will probably influence choice of technology for new things aimed at this kind of performance envelope. No doubt a lot of existing software will be left out by cross-compilation being too much of a pain.
- skyely 8y agoI can confirm that cross-compiling for aarch64 should work without hiccups.
- anonfunction 8y agoGolang has really nice cross compilation features, it's as easy as setting two environment variables `GOOS` and `GOARCH` when building.
- jon_masters 8y agoIf you use a modern gitops CI/CD type workflow building containers automatically then you don't need to worry about the manual building part either - this can be done cleanly with automation
- mcbain 8y agoI don’t think it is a moat, just stating the simple case. I’ve spent a lot of time making cross-compile work for complicated builds. It can be tedious and frustrating fighting compilers and build systems to get it right. Sometimes it is necessary because the target didn’t have a complete native toolchain, but other times because the target was just so incredibly slow for large builds. I haven’t built anything with them, but these Arm servers appear to be neither of those two cases.