5 ms·

Sounds like it to me. Similar to Windows WinSxS directory, or system32 redirection, or Program Files (x86).

jjoonathan 6y ago
Now we need a /System/Library/WOWARM to contain old x64 libraries and /System/Library/AMD64 to contain arm libraries and it will be perfect!
- djxfade 6y ago
  I know that you are ironic here, but for the uninformed, macOS supports "fat" binaries, where the machine code for multiple archetictures can be embedded in the same bundle
  - brian_herman__ 6y ago
    can we get a binary with 68k, powerpc, x86, and arm and call the binary .fatso
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Sadly by tradition standalone dynamic libraries on macOS end in "lib", as in "dylib" or "jnilib", unless there is a good reason to not do so (pam, for example).
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    Yep, and for the sake of making sure everyone can appreciate the joke I suppose I should explain the other half. During the 32 -> 64 bit transition, Windows took the opposite approach: instead of packing both architectures into a single "fat" library file, they would separate them into different folders. 64 bit libraries would be "native" and go into the usual system library folder and legacy 32 bit versions would go into a new "Windows on Windows" emulation folder. Good so far. The problem is that the usual system library folder was /Windows/System32 which alludes to 32-bit-ness but will now hold 64 bit libraries. That's a bit facepalm, but sacrifices had to be made for compatibility, or something (I would assume). For the emulation folder they chose /Windows/SysWOW64 because "Windows on Windows" ran on 64 bit and emulated 32 bit. Fair enough, I suppose, but now a folder with a name alluding to 64-bit-ness will contain 32 bit libraries, so we have a double facepalm: C:\Windows\System32 is where the 64 bit libraries live C:\Windows\SysWOW64 is where the 32 bit libraries live This is silly enough that it deserves a good-natured elbow-jab every now and then.
    - muststopmyths 6y ago
      To be the "well, actually" guy, "Windows on Windows" was the name for 16-bit windows on win32. Because "Windows" meant Windows 3.1 in those days. But "Windows on Win64" is WOW64, i.e., Win32 on Win64. Because by then "Windows" meant Win32. so "SysWow64" is the "System directory for WOW64". I've been on Windows too long because it all seems perfectly logical to me.

Now we need a /System/Library/WOWARM to contain old x64 libraries and /System/Library/AMD64 to contain arm libraries and it will be perfect!

djxfade 6y ago
I know that you are ironic here, but for the uninformed, macOS supports "fat" binaries, where the machine code for multiple archetictures can be embedded in the same bundle
- brian_herman__ 6y ago
  can we get a binary with 68k, powerpc, x86, and arm and call the binary .fatso
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Sadly by tradition standalone dynamic libraries on macOS end in "lib", as in "dylib" or "jnilib", unless there is a good reason to not do so (pam, for example).
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  Yep, and for the sake of making sure everyone can appreciate the joke I suppose I should explain the other half. During the 32 -> 64 bit transition, Windows took the opposite approach: instead of packing both architectures into a single "fat" library file, they would separate them into different folders. 64 bit libraries would be "native" and go into the usual system library folder and legacy 32 bit versions would go into a new "Windows on Windows" emulation folder. Good so far. The problem is that the usual system library folder was /Windows/System32 which alludes to 32-bit-ness but will now hold 64 bit libraries. That's a bit facepalm, but sacrifices had to be made for compatibility, or something (I would assume). For the emulation folder they chose /Windows/SysWOW64 because "Windows on Windows" ran on 64 bit and emulated 32 bit. Fair enough, I suppose, but now a folder with a name alluding to 64-bit-ness will contain 32 bit libraries, so we have a double facepalm: C:\Windows\System32 is where the 64 bit libraries live C:\Windows\SysWOW64 is where the 32 bit libraries live This is silly enough that it deserves a good-natured elbow-jab every now and then.
  - muststopmyths 6y ago
    To be the "well, actually" guy, "Windows on Windows" was the name for 16-bit windows on win32. Because "Windows" meant Windows 3.1 in those days. But "Windows on Win64" is WOW64, i.e., Win32 on Win64. Because by then "Windows" meant Win32. so "SysWow64" is the "System directory for WOW64". I've been on Windows too long because it all seems perfectly logical to me.