3 ms·
There are plenty of ways to organize C++ code, including several package managers. Why should a language -- a specification for a grammar and an abstract machin
by quotemstr 8y ago
There are plenty of ways to organize C++ code, including several package managers. Why should a language -- a specification for a grammar and an abstract machine to run programs using it --- specify things so concrete as the way you download code? It might as well dictate what editor you use.
We need less, not more, conflation between languages, runtime environments, build systems, and package repositories. It's senseless to couple these concepts.
- vlovich123 8y agoAnd yet having coded in Rust, Cargo solves all this bikeshedding. You can of course use your own build system but Cargo is pretty consistently used across the board which finally makes developing in a systems language as easy as Python (like virtualenv & pip but better).
- pjmlp 8y agoNot really, cargo still doesn't provide an answer for binary libraries, and depending on how the workspace is configured and the projects one is compiling, it may end up compiling the same crates multiple times.
- blt 8y agoI feel ok about making binary libraries difficult. I want open source to be the easy path. I think the idea of abi compatibility forces a lot of unnecessary overhead on designs. Consider the radical design of TempleOS where everything is c source, jit compiled when run.
- pjmlp 8y agoWhich is ok, assuming the Rust community doesn't want to be represented in such markets and doesn't have an issue waiting for cargo building always from source. Just don't complain about adoption then.
- steveklabnik 8y agoI think you will be happy sooner rather than later, but I heard about it second hand, so I don’t want to say too much.
- pjmlp 8y agoThanks, looking forward to it. :)